esetprotect_batch_get_detections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the recommended and hard limits, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., whether the call fails entirely if one UUID is invalid, or returns partial results), response format, or any other side effects. For a batch operation, this is a notable gap, but the limit information adds some transparency.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the limit guidance. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy. It is perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and limits. However, it omits behavioral details such as whether partial results are returned on error, the shape of the response, or any prerequisites. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more context about error handling or response would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for a straightforward batch get.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context by specifying 'by UUID' and 'v2 detections,' which clarifies that the detectionUuids array should contain detection UUIDs for v2 detections. However, it does not specify UUID format or whether any validation applies. The parameter name itself is fairly self-explanatory, but the description provides minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Get multiple v2 detections by UUID in one call.' It specifies the resource (v2 detections) and the method (batch by UUID), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like esetprotect_get_detection_v2 (single) and esetprotect_list_detections_v2 (list). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 includes practical usage limits: 'max recommended 100, hard limit 1000.' This gives clear guidance on how many UUIDs to pass. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the 'in one call' phrasing implies it is for batch retrieval as opposed to single calls, and the limit itself is a usage guideline. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is adequate for a batch tool.

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