get_detection_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Get detailed information' suggests a read-only operation with no side effects. This is standard for a get tool, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., caching, dependencies) are disclosed. The description does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 sentence, which is concise but may be too brief. It conveys the core purpose without waste, but given the complexity of parameters and siblings, it could be slightly more informative while still being efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (e.g., structure of detailed information), parameter relationships (e.g., repository fields for scoping), or any preconditions. A more complete description would mention output type or parameter usage hints.

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 description adds no meaning to the input schema parameters. Although schema coverage is high (field names exist), the description does not explain the purpose of 'force_refresh', 'repository_owner', etc. A tool with 5 parameters would benefit from at least a brief parameter description, even if just listing the key ones.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific detection rule'. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'list_detections', which would return a list of rules. The specificity of 'a specific detection rule' implies a single resource, aligning with the required detection_id parameter.

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 implies usage when details of a specific detection rule are needed, contrasting with list operations. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The context of sibling tools like 'list_detections' suggests natural differentiation, but the description itself lacks direct usage instructions.

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