get_secret_scanning_alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required `security_events` PAT scope, which is an important behavioral constraint, and includes a docs link. However, it omits other behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, or response format, leaving a partial picture.

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 with a linked resource, front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately compact for a simple GET tool.

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 with complete schema coverage, but the description lacks context on how to use it effectively, such as how to obtain an alert_number or contrast with list_secret_scanning_alerts. The docs link mitigates this, but the description alone is barely sufficient for a complete agent understanding.

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?

All three parameters (owner, repo, alert_number) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter information, meeting the baseline for good schema 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the specific resource 'a secret-scanning alert', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_secret_scanning_alerts and get_code_scanning_alert. The resource name is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when one needs a single alert by number versus listing all alerts. The only additional context is the required PAT scope, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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