get_detection

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying required permissions ('View Rules', 'View Policies'), which aren't covered by annotations. However, it lacks other behavioral details like rate limits, error handling, or output format, keeping it at a baseline level with some added context.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and permissions. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from permissions).

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 moderate complexity (read operation with permissions), 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and permissions, though it lacks usage guidelines. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'detection body and tests' in relation to parameters). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a Panther detection, including the detection body and tests.' It specifies the verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('Panther detection'), making the function clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_detections' or 'get_alert', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions permissions but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools like 'list_detections' or 'get_alert'. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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