IOC Blast Radius

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the traversal depth semantics (expanding from threats → techniques → actors/siblings) which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, and zero waste. The alternative tool mention is actionable rather than filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 a graph-traversal map with an output schema present, so return format is handled structurally. The description covers purpose distinctively, the depth semantics, and the alternative. A minor gap: it doesn't hint at the data volume/scale of a full-depth traversal, but with an output schema this is acceptable.

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%, with both parameters (depth, value) documented in the schema. The depth parameter's ring-based expansion description in the schema is clear. The description doesn't add parameter detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Map the blast radius of one indicator') and clearly enumerates what it returns: threats, MITRE techniques, actors, and sibling IOCs. It distinguishes itself from get_ioc_intelligence by contrast, making its scope distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('to scope impact of a single IOC') and names an alternative for richer multi-source dossiers (get_ioc_intelligence). This gives the agent clear decision guidance plus an explicit when-not.

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