malware_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API key requirement, which is essential behavioral context, and summarizes the returned data categories. However, it doesn't mention potential failure modes (e.g., unknown hash, rate limits) or confirm read-only behavior beyond what is implied.

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 sentences, 27 words total, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence lists return types and the key requirement. Every sentence provides value, with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the purpose, required input, authentication need, and major return categories. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit error/empty-result behavior, but the overall context is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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 the 'sha256' param described as 'SHA256 hash of the file'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond confirming the input type, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('full malware analysis overview from Hybrid Analysis'), and the required input ('for a SHA256 hash'). It also lists specific return types, distinguishing it from sibling threat intel tools focused on other indicators.

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 its use case (deep malware analysis for a hash) and mentions a prerequisite (HYBRID_API_KEY), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The many sibling tools suggest that explicit guidance would be helpful, but the context is reasonably clear.

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