get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes 'details' in the response. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 complexity of security monitoring configurations and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how suppression rules are identified, or what the response format looks like. For a tool that likely returns structured data about security rules, more context is needed to understand its full scope.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description implies retrieving details for 'a specific suppression rule,' which suggests an identifier might be needed, but since there are no parameters documented in the schema, the description doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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') and resource ('details of a specific suppression rule'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions' (plural) or 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions_rule', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific singular retrieval tool.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions' (likely for listing multiple rules) and 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions_rule' (potentially similar), there's no indication of when this specific 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppression' tool is appropriate versus those other retrieval options.

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