malware_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the authentication requirement (requires HYBRID_API_KEY) and the output type (samples with verdicts), but it omits other behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or any specific constraints of the feed. This is a moderate amount of transparency.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and source, the second states the return content, and the third states a prerequisite. It is concise with no redundant information.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and return type (recently analyzed samples with verdicts), plus the required API key. It does not fully describe the output structure or any potential use cases, but for a simple feed retrieval this is largely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none to describe.

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 identifies the tool as 'Get the latest malware detonation feed from Hybrid Analysis', specifying the action (get), the resource (malware detonation feed), and the source (Hybrid Analysis). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like malware_search and malware_overview, which are for different purposes.

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 implies usage for retrieving the most recent detonation samples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It lacks direct guidance on alternatives or exclusions, so it only achieves an 'implied usage' level rather than clear context.

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