get_alert

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 value by specifying required permissions ('Read Alerts'), which is not covered by annotations, enhancing transparency about access needs. It doesn't describe rate limits or return format, but with annotations and an output schema, this is acceptable.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential permission details. Both sentences earn their place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, read-only operation), annotations cover safety, schema fully documents inputs, and an output schema exists for return values. The description adds permissions context, making it complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly without gaps.

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' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Panther alert by ID'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_alerts' (which lists multiple alerts) and 'get_alert_events' (which fetches events for an alert), establishing a specific scope for retrieving a single alert's details.

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 'by ID' and mentioning permissions, which helps identify when to use this tool (e.g., for a known alert ID). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'list_alerts' for browsing or 'get_alert_events' for event data, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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