proofpoint_threat_list_families

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the output content (malware family names, descriptions, associated campaigns), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits, such as default time range when no parameters are provided, whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'List'), or any rate limits or specific response structure. It adds basic transparency but is not rich.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('List known threat families') and includes a brief, useful note on return content. There is no wasted text or redundancy with the schema, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and return value, but it lacks important contextual details, such as how time filtering works, what happens if no time params are supplied, and when to choose this over sibling threat tools. Given the presence of many related tools, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema—it does not explain how interval or sinceTime affect the results, nor does it clarify the meaning of the interval values. The description's mention of return content does not directly aid parameter understanding, so it remains at the baseline.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'List known threat families tracked by Proofpoint.' It identifies what the tool returns (malware family names, descriptions, and associated campaigns), which clarifies its scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like proofpoint_tap_get_all_threats or proofpoint_threat_get_campaign, so it misses the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no comparison to other threat-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and description alone.

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