art_get_test

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation is a read ('Get') and lists the returned content: attack command, cleanup command, arguments with defaults, dependencies, and platform requirements. It does not mention behavior on missing/invalid GUID, potential errors, or whether it is strictly read-only, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

One sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then packs the return fields into a single efficient clause. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains input, purpose, and what the response contains. It omits edge cases like invalid GUID or non-mutating guarantees, but an agent can invoke it correctly with the information given.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents the guid parameter as 'Atomic test GUID (UUID format)'. The description only says 'by its GUID,' adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a specific Atomic Red Team test by its GUID.' The phrase 'by its GUID' and 'specific' clearly distinguish this from sibling art_get_tests (which presumably lists multiple tests) and art_search. An agent can identify this tool as the singular, ID-based lookup.

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 usage: call this when you already have the test GUID and need full details. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, such as 'to search by name or technique, use art_search instead.' Compared to the best examples, this leaves routing to inference.

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