sophos_get_software_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description merely confirms ('Get details'). It adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or potential edge cases. Since annotations already cover safety, the description adds minimal value.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant information, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (get by ID), but without an output schema, the description does not clarify what details are returned. It is minimally complete for a read operation, but could be improved by mentioning return value structure.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage: both parameters are described ('Tenant UUID', 'Static package UUID'). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline for high 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?

Description clearly states 'Get details for a specific static software package by ID', specifying the action (get details), resource (static software package), and input (by ID). It distinguishes from siblings like sophos_list_software_packages (list all) and sophos_add_software_package (create).

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?

Description implies usage when you need details of a single package identified by ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with list or add tools, nor mention prerequisites or when not to use. The context of siblings provides some guidance, but the tool description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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