Get Immediate Threats detection results

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 the specific meaning of detection results as SIEM matches and the single-assessment scope, which is useful context but does not describe potential errors or response structure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the action and resource, making it highly scannable.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects). The description tells the agent what results are returned and the scope. It could be more complete by referencing where to get the assessment_id or when results are available, but overall it is adequate for this low-complexity read operation.

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 one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. The phrase 'for a specific Immediate Threats assessment' aligns with 'assessment_id' and clarifies its purpose, but it does not explain the expected format or how to discover the ID (e.g., via get_latest_ids). Minimal but acceptable for a simple ID string.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Get'), a clear resource ('detection results'), and contextual scope ('for a specific Immediate Threats assessment'). It also adds the clarifying detail that results are SIEM matches. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_ioc_list' or 'get_latest_ids'.

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 context is implied: you use this tool when you have an assessment_id and need detection results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the assessment needing to be run first or where to obtain the assessment_id.

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