run_hunting_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool executes a query for investigation, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly disclose non-obvious traits such as whether it is destructive, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This lack of detail limits the agent's ability to assess impacts.

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 concise, with two focused sentences. The first sentence defines the core action and purpose, and the second provides a crucial prerequisite. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, its domain, and a prerequisite. It could briefly mention that results are returned, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its use.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with one parameter ('query') described as 'The KQL query to execute'. The description adds no further semantics beyond restating 'KQL query', so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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's action ('Execute a KQL query') and its resource ('Microsoft Defender Advanced Hunting'). It also specifies its use case ('investigate security events') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool by instructing to call get_hunting_schema first.

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 offers a clear usage guideline: 'Always call get_hunting_schema first to understand available tables and columns.' This helps the AI agent know when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative scenarios.

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