ingest_detection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool ingests a detection (a creation operation) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing data. The description is minimal in behavioral disclosure.

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 efficient with a clear first sentence and a structured parameter list. No redundant content, but the parameter list could be more concise (e.g., inline descriptions). Overall well-organized.

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 6 parameters (4 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers parameter definitions adequately but lacks context on behavior such as duplicate handling, validation rules, or post-ingestion effects. It is complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps for nuanced understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by providing examples for 'source' and listing allowed values for 'severity'. However, other parameters like 'affected_resource_type' and 'affected_resource_id' are only named, lacking additional semantics. The description partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 that the tool ingests a security detection from an external tool, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on ingestion, while siblings like 'create_remediation_ticket' or 'run_scan_schedule' have different purposes.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description.

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