incident_detection_groups__get_detection_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the raw endpoint path, which merely restates the annotation title; it says nothing about error behavior for unknown UUIDs or what 'details' includes.

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?

It is short, but the content is largely redundant: 'Get detection group' and 'Get details about a detection group' say the same thing, and the parenthetical HTTP route duplicates the annotation title. Two of three segments could be dropped without information loss.

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 single-record GET with a fully documented schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the definition supplies enough for an agent to call it correctly. The remaining gap — no explanation of what a detection group is or how it relates to detections — is minor for this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (detectionGroupUuid and the fields projection) are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get detection group', 'Get details about a detection group') and the singular framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_detection_groups. It never explicitly names the list tool as the alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required UUID makes it clear this is a single-record lookup, but there is no statement of when to call this versus list_detection_groups or the detections tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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