Similar Threats

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, already signaling safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context: precomputed similarity scores and the tier requirement. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, each sentence adds value (purpose, prerequisite, unique value). No fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description conveys the core functionality and discovery value. It lacks explicit output format, but the premise is familiar (list of similar threats). Nearly complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (threat_id and limit). The description mentions threat_id implicitly but does not add detail beyond the schema, so it meets baseline but does not elevate.

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 tool finds threats similar to a given threat, mentioning the specific similarity criteria (TTPs, IOCs, actor attribution). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_threat (single threat) and get_recent_threats (listing).

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 requires Purple tier, providing a prerequisite. It also implies usage for discovering lateral threats not surfaced by the LLM. However, it does not explicitly exclud when not to use or name alternatives.

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