abnormal_threats_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns threat details (classification, severity, message IDs) but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or error behavior. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 sentences with no wasted wording. The purpose is front-loaded, and the description is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what is returned. However, it does not differentiate from other get tools like abnormal_cases_get, and sibling tools are not referenced. Slightly above average completeness.

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 already fully describes the single parameter threatId as a UUID with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the parameter's purpose, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific threat case by ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like abnormal_threats_list (which lists threats) and abnormal_cases_get (which gets a different entity).

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 implies usage for a single threat when you have its ID, and the sibling tools list includes abnormal_threats_list for listing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like needing a valid threat ID.

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