esetprotect_get_detection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read ('Get') and flags the endpoint as legacy, but it does not explain what happens with an invalid UUID, what response shape to expect, or any deprecation specifics. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the resource, the lookup key, and the legacy nature of the endpoint. There is no filler or redundant content, and every element contributes useful context.

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?

The tool is simple with a single required parameter and no nested objects, so the description is close to adequate. However, the lack of any alternative routing guidance and the absence of behavioral details such as response format or not-found behavior leave meaningful gaps, especially since no output schema or annotations are provided.

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 does clarify that the parameter is the UUID of the detection and that this is the v1/legacy surface. However, it does not provide UUID format guidance, examples, or mention how to obtain the UUID. It adds some meaning but only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single detection by UUID'. It also differentiates from siblings by noting this is the 'v1 - legacy surface', which distinguishes it from get_detection_v2 and list_detections. This is sufficiently clear and scoped.

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 implies usage when a single detection needs to be fetched by UUID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over get_detection_v2 or batch_get_detections. The 'legacy surface' hint suggests avoiding it in favor of v2 for new work, but that guidance is not made explicit.

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