Get EV threat by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotations, such as response format, error behavior, or scoping constraints. It simply restates the purpose, providing no extra transparency.

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, short sentence ('Get a specific EV threat.') with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID operation, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not describe the return value or any potential error conditions, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Despite this, the tool is simple enough that the missing details are not critical.

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 one parameter (threat_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, adding no meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific EV threat'), and the title adds 'by ID', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_threats_list (which lists all threats) and cymulate_ev_threats_get_filters (which returns filters). It is unambiguous and specific.

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 for retrieving a single threat by ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like cymulate_ev_threats_list or cymulate_ev_threats_get_filters. There is no 'when not to use' or alternative naming, so it falls to 'implied usage'.

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