sophos_list_detected_exploits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's listing behavior is consistent. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, rate limits) are disclosed beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a purpose: core listing action and optional filter. No extraneous text, front-loaded with the main function.

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?

Adequate for a simple listing tool with four parameters. No output schema, but the response format (list of exploit attempts) is implied. Could mention the expected result structure or link to sophos_get_detected_exploit for detail retrieval.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description only reiterates the thumbprint_not_in parameter, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'exploit attempts detected by exploit mitigation', with optional filtering by thumbprint. Distinguishes from siblings like sophos_get_detected_exploit by focusing on listing multiple attempts.

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?

Mentions optional thumbprint exclusion but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like sophos_get_detected_exploit or sophos_list_exploit_mitigation_apps. No when-not or alternative tool references.

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