sentinel_logs_table_details_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what details are retrieved (metadata, retention, row count) but lacks critical information such as whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive context without annotations.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It uses parentheses to list examples of details concisely, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given the complexity of a tool with 1 undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks essential details on parameters, behavioral traits, and return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap and making it unclear how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get details (metadata, retention, row count, etc.) for a Log Analytics table,' which specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Log Analytics table'), and scope of details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sentinel_logs_table_schema_get' or 'sentinel_logs_tables_list,' which reduces clarity in a crowded context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving metadata versus schema or list operations, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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