get_ai_alert_triage_summary

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains the internal process (fetches stream IDs, retrieves latest response text), discloses permission requirements ('Run Panther AI'), and details the return structure. This enriches understanding without contradicting 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. However, the 'Returns:' section is somewhat redundant given the output schema, and the permission note could be integrated more smoothly, slightly reducing efficiency.

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's complexity (involves multi-step retrieval), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, process, permissions, and return values, providing sufficient context for an agent to use it effectively without over-explaining structured data.

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%, with the parameter 'alert_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('retrieve'), resource ('latest AI triage summary'), and scope ('for a specific Panther alert'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_alert' (which retrieves general alert details) and 'start_ai_alert_triage' (which initiates triage generation), making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 context by specifying it retrieves 'the most recently generated AI triage analysis for an alert,' suggesting it should be used after triage has been initiated. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if no triage exists) or name alternatives like 'start_ai_alert_triage' for generating triage, leaving some guidance gaps.

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