sophos_get_user_attestation

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains the possible status values ('pending', 'completed', 'expired') and hints at 'selectedOption' in the response. This gives agents insight into the tool's behavior and expected outcomes, though details like error handling or rate limits are omitted.

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: three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage advice and status details. No superfluous words or repetitions.

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) and the description covers the main use case (polling after creation) and expected statuses. Given no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent, though it could mention error conditions or response structure more explicitly.

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% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add significant new information beyond the schema; it simply restates the purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides necessary semantics.

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 'Get the current status and details of a user activity attestation by its ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user activity attestation'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sophos_create_user_attestation by noting it is used for polling after creation.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Poll this after creating an attestation to check whether the user has responded.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternative tools or exclusion scenarios.

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