quarantine_quarantined_objects__get_quarantined_object

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 covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what a quarantined object represents, whether access is scoped, or how errors surface for a bad UUID. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short, but it wastes words restating the phrase 'Get quarantined object' twice and padding with the HTTP route. Nothing is front-loaded with information the agent could not get from the name and annotations.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description should convey what the returned object contains or how the UUID is obtained, and it does none of that. Annotations cover safety, but the description leaves the agent without enough to know when this call is warranted over the list endpoint.

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%: objectUuid is documented as a reference to a QuarantinedObject and the optional 'fields' projection is fully explained in the schema. The description adds only the path-placement hint via the URL template, which is marginal, 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 says only 'Get quarantined object' twice and echoes the REST path, which restates the tool name rather than explaining the resource. It never distinguishes this single-object fetch from the sibling quarantine_quarantined_objects__list_quarantined_objects, leaving the agent to infer the difference from names alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the list sibling, and no stated prerequisite such as needing a UUID obtained from the list endpoint first. The only signal is the {objectUuid} path template, which weakly implies a single-resource lookup.

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