ioc_pack_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions output (license metadata, rule counts) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects or authorization requirements.

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, well-structured sentence of 18 words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the basic purpose and output fields (license metadata, rule counts) but does not specify the return format, whether filtering is possible, or if the list includes built-in packs. Given no output schema and multiple siblings, more detail on the output structure 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?

The input schema has one optional parameter 'extra_paths' with its own description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score 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 the tool lists bundled and optional external behavioral IoC packs with license metadata and rule counts. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'IoC packs', differentiating from sibling tools like 'hunt_ioc_pack' which hunts rather than lists.

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 listing packs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hunt_ioc_pack. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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