get_attacker

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

No annotations are provided. The description only mentions one behavioral trait (soft-deleted attackers carry 'deleted: true'), but does not disclose other aspects like permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The burden falls entirely on the description, which is minimal.

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 consists of two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a useful edge case. Every word 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?

For a simple 'get' tool, the description provides the essential purpose and an edge case. However, it omits details like output format (though an output schema exists), error handling, and prerequisites. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 67% description coverage; two parameters have descriptions but server_version does not. The tool description adds no extra parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 retrieves a single attacker entity. The verb 'Get' and resource 'attacker' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from other get_* tools like get_asset or get_component, which are siblings.

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 (e.g., list_attestations or other get_* tools). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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