sentinel_hunting_query_get

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 states it 'Get[s] full details', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, what 'full details' includes, or any rate limits or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.

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 the complexity of a query retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and expected outputs, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in a security context like Sentinel hunting.

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 has 1 parameter ('kwargs') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions retrieving by 'name or ID', which hints at the parameter's purpose but doesn't specify the exact format (e.g., string input, how to distinguish name vs. ID). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, insufficient to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a Sentinel hunting query (saved search)', making the purpose evident. It specifies retrieval by 'name or ID', which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sentinel_hunting_queries_list' or 'log_analytics_saved_search_get', which handle similar resources but with different scopes (list vs. single item).

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sentinel_hunting_queries_list' for listing queries or 'log_analytics_saved_search_get' for similar saved searches, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage information leaves the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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