zins_get_cyber_incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only analytics' phrase is redundant but not contradictory. The description adds valuable behaviors: grouping by multiple dimensions surfaces nested `entries`, empty result means no incidents, and the time window restriction. This goes beyond annotation-provided safety information.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds critical information: grouping default, nested structure, empty-result semantics, and time window restriction. No wasted 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and many close siblings, the description provides enough information to select and invoke it correctly. It covers grouping behavior, output structure (nested entries), and time constraints. It does not detail return formats or error behavior, but the essential context for choosing this tool is present.

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 low (14%), so the description compensates by explaining the key `categorize_by` parameter (one or more dimensions, default THREAT_CATEGORY_ID) and the relationship between start/end time parameters (7- or 14-day window). It does not cover `limit` or `query`, but `query` already has a thorough schema description. This adds meaning for the most critical parameters.

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 gets cyber-security incidents grouped by category, with a specific default grouping (THREAT_CATEGORY_ID) and support for multiple dimensions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zins_get_cyber_incidents_by_location and zins_get_cyber_incidents_daily, which are specialized variants.

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?

It provides clear usage context: read-only analytics, historical 7- or 14-day window, and grouping behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this generic tool over its specialized siblings (e.g., by_location, by_threat_and_app), nor mention exclusions. The context is strong but alternative guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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