dynatrace_managed_get_security_problem_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what the response includes: CVE details, affected entities, vulnerable components, code locations, and technical analysis. No contradiction exists, and the added content detail goes beyond the annotation.

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 focused sentence that leads with the action and target, then lists the key content areas. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema present, the description reasonably explains what information will be returned, listing several concrete categories. Combined with the thorough parameter descriptions and the readOnly annotation, the agent has enough context to call it correctly, though a note on response structure or error behavior would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (securityProblemId and environment_alias) are already well documented. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and a specific resource ('a specific security problem'), and enumerates the content areas (CVE details, affected entities, vulnerable components, code locations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/detail tools, especially list_security_problems and get_problem_details.

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 implies this tool is used when a specific security problem's details are needed, and the schema parameter notes the ID comes from list_security_problems. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_problem_details or list_security_problems, leaving routing partially to inference.

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