tie_attacks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses key defaults (include_closed=False, limit=50, order=desc) and explains the meaning of order and the requirement of resource scoping. It does not mention pagination, auth, or error behavior, but for a read-only list tool this is reasonable. It adds value beyond the schema by describing the effect of parameters.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief context paragraph with an example, and a clean list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the necessary context thoroughly. It explains the required scoping, all parameters with defaults, and provides an example. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in the Args section. It clarifies resource_type values, resource_value meaning, attack_type_ids examples (DCSync, Kerberoasting), ISO 8601 for dates, and default values. This is essential and well done.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List IoA attack instances for a resource within a profile.' This clearly states the tool's function and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tie_alerts or tie_search_events that target different data. The example further clarifies the intended use.

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 that the TIE API requires scoping attacks to a resource and gives a concrete example with resource_type and resource_value. This provides clear context for when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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