sophos_playbook_threat_hunt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the playbook's content (SQL queries, MITRE mappings, isolation decision trees), enriching the agent's understanding of what the tool returns. No contradictions are present.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get threat hunting playbook') and then lists the key content. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description mentions the type of content returned (SQL queries, MITRE mappings, decision trees), which provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's value. However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at the expected output structure.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'hunt_hypothesis' with a description and enum values. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema itself describes the parameter), the description adds no additional parameter information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get threat hunting playbook for Sophos Live Discover and XDR.' It specifies the content returned (SQL queries, MITRE mappings, isolation decision trees), which distinguishes it from sibling playbook tools like sophos_playbook_incident_response and sophos_playbook_malware_triage.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, context for selection, or explicit scenarios. The sibling list includes other playbook tools, but no differentiation is made.

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