Threat Hunting Bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by disclosing that it composes data server-side ('composed server-side') and stating its output scope (full detail + similar threats + simulations + infrastructure pivots). This gives the agent a clear expectation of the response's breadth.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the tool's value proposition and composition, the second states its positioning relative to alternatives. 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 simple (1 parameter) with full schema coverage and an output schema present, so the description's burden is low. It covers the purpose, compositional scope, and positioning. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify return format structure beyond naming the four components, but with a single simple param and output schema present 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 coverage is 100% — the single parameter threat_id is fully documented with type and example format 'TL-2026-0042'. The description references the parameter implicitly ('for a threat') but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline 3 for full schema 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 uses a specific verb+resource framing: 'Flagship one-call hunting dossier for a threat' listing exactly what it composes (full detail + similar threats + simulations + infrastructure pivots). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Best single tool to scope a hunt around one threat,' which separates it from get_threat_bundle, get_similar_threats, get_threat_simulations, and get_infrastructure_pivots that each cover subsets.

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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: 'Best single tool to scope a hunt around one threat' provides strong contextual guidance. It implies it aggregates the other individual tools (get_similar_threats, get_threat_simulations, get_infrastructure_pivots) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., if only one facet is needed).

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