sophos_get_detections_group_query_status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it gets status and suggests polling, but omits details on error handling, response format, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, the first stating purpose and the second giving a critical usage hint. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., status values, fields). For a polling tool, the agent needs to know what 'finished' looks like and how to interpret the response. This gap makes the description incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already thoroughly describes both parameters (run_id and tenant_id). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 uses 'Get the status of a running detection-groups query', which clearly specifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from similar tools like sophos_get_detections_query_status (for single queries) and sophos_get_live_query_status.

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 instruction 'Poll until status is ''finished''' implies a polling pattern and when to stop, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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