esetprotect_get_detection_v2

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 restates the core action and does not mention read-only behavior, response format, error semantics, or version-specific behavior. The agent cannot learn what happens on a missing UUID or what the returned detection looks like.

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 with no extraneous words. It immediately states the action, resource, and identifier, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource and identifier. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out return value expectations, error behavior, and how this tool relates to sibling detection tools, so completeness is only adequate.

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 only repeats that the parameter is a UUID, which is already evident from the parameter name 'detectionUuid'. It adds no format guidance, source for obtaining the UUID, or constraints beyond the schema's basic string type.

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 (v2).' The word 'single' clearly separates it from list and batch siblings. However, it does not explain the distinction from the similar 'esetprotect_get_detection' sibling beyond the version suffix, so differentiation is not fully explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_detections_v2, batch_get_detections, or get_detection (v1). The phrase 'single detection by UUID' implies a use case, but it does not state exclusions or recommend alternative tools for other scenarios.

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