opencdr_detection_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context that annotations do not: no live member request is issued in Fleet mode, and missing or expired evidence plus integrity failures surface as errors and are never silently degraded to an empty finding. That is exactly the kind of failure semantics an agent needs before calling.

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 content is dense and largely front-loaded around what the tool returns and how it fails. That said, the Fleet/agent_id rule is stated twice in different words, which is wasted space in an already short definition. The line-broken formatting also reads less like prose and more like fragments.

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 two-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and no output schema, the definition covers the essential operational facts: what evidence is returned, how agent scoping works per mode, and how failure and integrity problems behave. The remaining gap is that the shape of the returned evidence and the meaning of detection_id are unstated.

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 carries the burden for both parameters. It does explain agent_id meaningfully in terms of Fleet versus Core mode, which is more than the schema offers. But detection_id, the only required parameter, is never described at all, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch exact retained detection evidence'. That is clearly a read of a single detection's evidence artifact. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as opencdr_detection_handling or opencdr_library_evidence, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives mode-based conditional guidance for agent_id: supply it explicitly in fleet mode, leave it unset in core mode. This is useful operational guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor whether Fleet mode is the default, so usage is only implied rather than fully actionable.

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