list_threat_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the return format is a 'compact summary (no markdown body)' and implies a read-only operation by advising to get full details via another tool. Could be improved by explicitly stating it is non-destructive, but the context strongly suggests a safe query.

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?

Three dense sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage directive, then return format and next step. Every sentence serves a distinct 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?

Given the single required parameter, no output schema, and the context of sibling tools, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to proceed. No obvious 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (1 param described). The description's mention of 'for a GitHub organization' merely paraphrases the schema's description. No additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'supply-chain threat-center incidents' scoped to a GitHub organization. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_threat_incident by positioning it as the initial lookup step.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS call this first when the user mentions a known supply-chain incident...' with concrete examples (e.g., 'axios compromise'). Also instructs to call get_threat_incident afterward. No ambiguity about context.

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