Get Cloud Detection Rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the field list clarifies what is returned, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, auth requirements, tenant scoping, or explicitly confirm non-destructiveness. Some transparency is present, but notable behavioral gaps remain.

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 filler. It immediately identifies the action, resource, and key output fields, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, and the tool is a simple list operation with optional parameters. However, with no annotations and zero parameter coverage in the description, an agent is left guessing about tenant and name_contains semantics. It is minimally adequate for tool selection but not fully complete for confident invocation.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters: limit, tenant, or name_contains. The fields mentioned in the description are output fields, not input parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 ('List') and a concrete resource ('SentinelOne STAR / cloud-detection rules'), and it enumerates the returned fields. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_alerts and get_threats by naming the exact resource type.

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 provides clear context: it is for listing cloud-detection rules, not alerts or threats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource scope is specific enough to imply correct usage among the sibling tools.

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