sophos_get_detections_group_results

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's role is minor. It adds context about the return structure (grouped detections with specific fields) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, potential emptiness). No contradiction with 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 two sentences, succinctly covering purpose and return content. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return structure (count, rule, MITRE tags, device info). However, it omits details about pagination (page and page_size parameters) and potential error conditions, which are important for a retrieval tool.

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% with all parameters documented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets results of a completed detection-groups query and specifies the content of each item (count, detection rule, MITRE tags, device info). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like status checks or query initiators.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it should be used after starting a query and checking status, nor does it indicate prerequisites like a successful group query. The agent must infer the workflow from the tool name alone.

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