sophos_get_siem_alerts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the time window (last 24 hours) and pagination behavior (cursor, has_more). However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, response structure, or that it is a read-only operation (though inferred). The disclosed behaviors are essential and add value beyond a basic description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no waste. It front-loads the purpose, then constraints, then pagination. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise yet informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It only mentions cursor and has_more, but does not describe the alert structure, fields, or that it returns an array. Given the complexity of SIEM alerts and the presence of sibling tools like 'sophos_get_alert' that might return detailed data, this description leaves a gap in understanding the output format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to any parameters; it only mentions cursor and has_more from the response, which are not input parameters. No additional syntax, formatting, or contextual hints are provided beyond what the schema already covers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'alerts from the Sophos SIEM API', with the specific context 'for integration with external SIEM systems'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'sophos_get_alert' (single alert) and 'sophos_get_siem_events' (different resource), meeting the criteria for specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context: alerts are only from the last 24 hours, and pagination instructions (use cursor, check has_more) are given. It implicitly suggests this tool is for bulk SIEM integration rather than individual alert retrieval, but it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use the tool. The 24-hour window is a key constraint that guides the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.