sophos_playbook_malware_triage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only, information-retrieval tool (returns guidance) with no mention of side effects, which is appropriate for a query tool. It does not mention any prerequisites or rate limits, but for a simple lookup tool, this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that covers purpose and outputs without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate output list), but it is efficient.

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?

For a tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete information: it tells the agent what the tool does, what parameters it takes, and what the return value contains (containment decisions, evidence collection, recovery procedures, IOC extraction guide). No gaps.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear enum and description. The description adds meaningful context by explaining what the returned guidance will contain (containment, evidence, recovery, IOCs), which helps the agent understand the output beyond the parameter definition.

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 tool retrieves malware triage guidance for specific detection types, and lists the types of guidance returned (containment decisions, evidence collection, etc.). It is distinct from sibling playbooks like incident_response and threat_hunt.

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?

While the name and description imply use for initial malware response, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling playbooks (sophos_playbook_incident_response, sophos_playbook_threat_hunt), nor any when-not-to-use or alternative indications.

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