proofpoint_tap_get_all_threats

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns both messages and clicks, and both delivered/blocked and permitted/blocked outcomes, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only status, authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits that an agent would need to anticipate side effects or limitations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get all threats') and then specifies the scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to provide enough context. It does explain the return categories, and the schema fully covers parameters. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this aggregate tool versus the dedicated per-type sibling tools, and gives no detail about the response structure or potential errors, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each of the five parameters fully described (format, interval, sinceTime, sinceSeconds, threatStatus). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves all threats (messages and clicks) from the TAP SIEM API, with a specific scope of delivered/blocked messages and permitted/blocked clicks. While it does not name sibling tools, the explicit scope distinguishes it from the per-type tools like proofpoint_tap_get_messages_delivered or proofpoint_tap_get_clicks_blocked, making the purpose clear.

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 gives a general usage context ('for a given time window') but provides no guidance on when to prefer this aggregate tool over the more specific sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. This leaves the agent without explicit decision support.

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