C2 Intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'live' nature of the data and enumerates view semantics, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format beyond what the schema/output-schema already cover.

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 core purpose, then enumerates the views and ends with the alternative-tool pointer. It's efficient with no filler, though slightly long due to the seven-view enumeration—which is necessary information rather than waste.

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 presence of a rich output schema, full enum-documented params at 100% coverage, and solid annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds exactly the remaining value needed: view semantics and the blocklist alternative. This is a complete and well-rounded tool contract.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by naming which views expect the 'limit' param ('Max records for paginated views like beacons') and explaining what each view value means beyond the bare enum labels. This supplement's the enum list with real semantic intent.

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 'Query the live C2 (command-and-control) intelligence center' and enumerates seven distinct views ('beacons', 'configs', 'operators', etc.), giving the agent a specific verb+resource and a full map of what each view returns. It effectively distinguishes this tool from the sibling generate_c2_blocklist by explicitly naming the alternative.

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 provides explicit when-not guidance: 'Use generate_c2_blocklist when you want firewall-ready output rather than raw records.' It also orients the agent by starting with a default view ('beacons' — default) and explaining the purpose of each selectable view, giving clear context for when to choose each.

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