misp_get_galaxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention permissions required, error handling (e.g., 404 if galaxy not found), rate limits, or whether the response includes all clusters or is paginated.

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 a single, concise sentence that includes both the action and illustrative examples. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or extraneous content.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the response format or behavior on error. Given the lack of annotations, more context would be beneficial, but it meets minimum viability.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'galaxyId' with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate per calibration guidelines.

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 that the tool retrieves a specific galaxy with its clusters, and provides concrete examples like MITRE ATT&CK techniques and threat actor profiles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as misp_list_galaxies which lists all galaxies, and misp_search_galaxy_clusters which searches clusters.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like misp_list_galaxies or misp_search_galaxy_clusters. The description implies usage through examples but lacks explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to other tools.

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