get_threat_actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (markdown) and takes an ID, but does not mention error behavior, read-only nature, or side effects. For a simple get, this is adequate but not rich.

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 efficient with a clear one-line summary followed by brief Args/Returns sections. No fluff, though the Args section partially duplicates schema info.

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 retrieval tool with a schema and output schema present, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output format. It doesn't mention edge cases, but the simple nature and existing structured data make this sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and the description repeats the same 'ID of the threat actor to retrieve' text. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'ctx' is not in the schema and might be an implicit/hidden parameter, but it doesn't enhance understanding of the public parameter.

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 'Get details about a specific threat actor' with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('threat actor'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_threat_actors (which lists all) and update/delete_threat_actor.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: retrieve details for a specific actor given an ID. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated, but the context is clear enough for a simple get operation. Siblings are not referenced.

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