esetprotect_get_detection_group

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 only says 'Get a single detection group by UUID' – a read operation is implied, but there is no statement about what happens if the UUID is not found, whether the response is a full object or a summary, or any error behavior. For a simple getter this is a moderate gap, but with zero annotations the description should disclose at least the basic behavior beyond the operation name.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It could arguably include more context, but for what it is, it is concise and to the point.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin. An agent knows it fetches one detection group by UUID, but lacks information about return shape, error handling, or how this fits with sibling tools like list_detection_groups or get_detection. For a simple getter this may be acceptable, but the complete absence of behavioral context makes it minimally viable at best.

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. The description mentions 'by UUID', which maps to the detectionGroupUuid parameter, but it doesn't add format details (e.g., UUID format, required vs optional) beyond what the schema already shows. Since there is only one parameter and the description names it implicitly, it adds minimal value but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single detection group') with a clear identifier ('by UUID'). It distinguishes from the sibling list_detection_groups by implying a single-item fetch, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. Clear enough for an agent to understand the core operation.

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: use this when you need one detection group by UUID, versus list_detection_groups for multiple. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_detection_groups, and no context about prerequisites or typical workflow. The sibling names provide some implicit context, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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