Get FKC Scenarios detection results

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description is consistent. However, it adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., return format, error cases, or relationship to assessment lifecycle), leaving the agent with only the safety profile.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and conveys the core function efficiently.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain where assessment_id comes from, what the response contains, or how it fits with other FKC scenario tools, making the tool only minimally usable.

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 no description for assessment_id, and the description does not clarify it. It mentions 'payload' but does not explicitly connect it to assessment_id, leaving the agent uncertain about what value to pass.

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 detection results), the resource (FKC Scenarios payload), and specificity (specific payload). It is distinct from sibling tools like cymulate_fkc_scenarios_get_template or list_templates, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context such as needing a completed assessment. The description only states the action without any usage context.

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