zins_get_cyber_incidents

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only analytics' and adds useful behaviors: empty results mean no incidents, and the time window constraint. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or other traits, but does not contradict annotations. With annotations doing part of the work, the description adds moderate value.

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 very concise: three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds detail on grouping behavior, and the third covers edge cases and constraints. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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 provides a clear purpose, grouping behavior, and a constraint on time window, but lacks details on parameters (e.g., 'limit', 'categorize_by' format), return format (no output schema), and more precise time parameter semantics. It is adequate for a simple read-only analytics tool but leaves gaps that could hinder correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 14% (only 'query' parameter described). The tool description fails to explain most parameters like 'limit', 'categorize_by', and time parameters. It does provide a constraint on the historical window (7 or 14 days), which relates to 'start_days_ago' and 'end_days_ago', adding some value. However, overall parameter semantics are insufficient given low coverage.

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), resource (cyber-security incidents), and grouping nature (by category). It mentions default grouping dimension, aiding understanding. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zins_get_cyber_incidents_by_location' or 'zins_get_cyber_incidents_daily', which are similar but for different groupings.

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 explains that incidents can be grouped by multiple dimensions and that the window must be a 7- or 14-day interval, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusion criteria. Usage is implied through the grouping description and sibling tool names.

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