defender_get_alert

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool returns evidence categories, MITRE techniques, detection source, detector ID, and the comment thread. This goes beyond what the annotations convey without contradicting them.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the operation and then lists concrete returned entities. Every phrase adds value and there is no repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies what is returned in detail, and the schema covers the required input. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of included fields, though error/not-found behavior is not mentioned.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter alert_id with 'The alert ID.', giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add further parameter syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one alert'), and enumerates the returned content ('full evidence', 'MITRE techniques', 'detection source', 'detector ID', 'comment thread'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like defender_list_alerts or defender_get_incident.

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 use for retrieving a single alert's full details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as defender_list_alerts or defender_update_alert. The 'one alert' wording gives context, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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