sentinel_source_control_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data or errors, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 security tool (Sentinel), zero annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how this fits into the broader Sentinel context with its many sibling tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage with one parameter named 'kwargs' of type string. The description mentions 'by ID' but doesn't specify that this ID should be passed in 'kwargs', what format it should have, or provide any examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 the action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific Sentinel source control by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'sentinel_connectors_get' or 'sentinel_watchlist_get' which follow the same 'get by ID' pattern for different Sentinel resources.

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 the sibling 'sentinel_source_controls_list' for listing all source controls, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a specific ID format or authentication context. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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