get_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output fields but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. However, as a read-only summary getter, the behavior is mostly implied; the description adds value by enumerating return contents, but it could mention that it does not modify data or require special auth.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output fields, then two clear directives for alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant fluff.

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 getter with one parameter, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the return contents, routes to alternatives, and even warns about a sibling's scope. Given the lack of an output schema, it gives the agent enough to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

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 only parameter, target_id, has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain it beyond implying a target identifier. Since the schema provides no help, the description should at least state that target_id is the unique integer ID of the target, but it does not. This leaves the agent to infer from context, making it insufficient.

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 returns a 'lean summary' of a single target, enumerating specific fields (domain, scan status, tags, archive state, creation/last scan dates, module count). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming scan_get_findings and get_target_changes, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does versus others.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for a summary) and when not to: it points to scan_get_findings for per-module data and get_target_changes for change history. It also warns about scan_get_findings returning tenant-wide data, which helps the agent filter properly. This is high-quality routing.

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