sophos_request_forensic_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool initiates a collection and returns an ID for polling, implying asynchrony. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or rate limits, which would be valuable for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and follows with a critical usage hint (polling).

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?

Given the tool's nature (a request that triggers an async operation) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers that a polling ID is returned. It could mention what the polling status indicates (e.g., 'completed' or 'failed'), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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, providing clear definitions for 'tenant_id' and 'endpoint_id'. The description adds no additional context about these parameters, such as how to obtain them or their roles in the request. Baseline 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 action ('request') and the resource ('forensic log collection from an endpoint'), which is distinct from sibling tools like 'request_memory_dump' or 'get_forensic_log_status'. It also mentions the return value ('forensicLogRequestId'), adding specificity.

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 implies the context ('for investigation') and explains that the returned ID should be used to poll for status, guiding the agent to use 'get_forensic_log_status' afterward. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'request_memory_dump'.

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