misp_fetch_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetch/pull of data' without indicating whether it is read-only or destructive, required permissions, side effects (e.g., network calls), or return behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand implications.

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 (12 words) that is front-loaded with the action. No extraneous information.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what the fetch entails (e.g., immediate effect, synchronous vs. asynchronous) and how it differs from sibling tools like misp_cache_feed. Slightly more detail would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter feedId, and the schema already describes it as 'Feed ID to fetch'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Trigger a fetch/pull') and the resource ('data from a specific MISP feed'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like misp_list_feeds (list), misp_cache_feed (cache), and misp_toggle_feed (toggle).

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 usage (to fetch data from a feed) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is functional but lacks comparative context.

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