Get Threat Bundle

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining the bundling semantics (include parameter default 'full' vs 'summary') and the round-trip efficiency benefit, which goes beyond what annotations state.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero wasted words. Front-loads the primary purpose ('One-shot dossier') and the efficiency argument, then closes with a parameter clarification. Every sentence 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?

Has an output schema for return value documentation, annotations cover safety, and schema covers 100% of parameters. The description clarifies bundling behavior and the include flag's purpose. For a read-only, idempotent tool with solid schema coverage, this is complete.

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 both parameters documented in the schema (include's 'full'/'summary' values and threat_id's format). The description adds the 'summary returns just the threat' clarification which reinforces include semantics, but the schema already documents these values. Baseline 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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'One-shot dossier for a threat' with explicit components (simulations + analysis transcripts). Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_threat_simulations and get_threat_transcripts by bundling them.

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?

States clear context — use when you want the full dossier in one call. Explicitly contrasts with calling get_threat + get_threat_simulations + get_threat_transcripts separately, and mentions the include='summary' option for just the threat. Doesn't discuss exclusions or alternatives like get_threat_hunting_bundle, but that's acceptable.

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