get_attacker

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It only reveals one behavioral trait (soft-deleted visibility) but omits crucial details like error responses, authentication requirements, or side effects. The agent lacks information to anticipate behavior beyond a basic read.

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 short with one sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it lacks essential information, making it under-specified. It earns its place but fails to provide a complete picture.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it still misses contextual information such as error handling, required permissions, and the significance of the server_version parameter. For a simple tool, this is partially adequate but incomplete.

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 67% (two params described, server_version missing description). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. It does not explain the purpose or format of server_version, nor does it clarify the relationship between the 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 'Get a single attacker', specifying the verb and resource. It also adds the distinct detail about soft-deleted attackers, which differentiates it from other get_* tools in the sibling list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_attacker (which doesn't exist but other listing tools do) or when not to use it. The context of a simple getter is assumed, but explicit conditions or prerequisites are missing.

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