knowbe4_phishing_security_test_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the response includes (phish-prone percentage, clicked/opened/reported counts), which is helpful return-behavior context. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, pagination, or potential error cases. For a read-only GET operation, the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and the second lists key return values. Front-loaded with the core verb+resource.

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 single-parameter, read-only GET with 100% schema coverage and a return-value listing in the description, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what the response contains, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. It could mention authentication requirements but that's likely uniform across the KnowBe4 tool family.

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%, so the schema already documents the single pst_id parameter. The description adds context that the ID identifies the specific test for which detailed results are returned, but doesn't explain where the ID comes from or its format constraints beyond the schema's type. 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?

The description states the verb+resource clearly: 'Get detailed results for a specific Phishing Security Test (PST) by ID.' It distinguishes from the sibling knowbe4_phishing_security_tests_list (which is the list variant). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, and the distinction between this and knowbe4_phishing_campaign_tests is only implied.

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 use when you have a specific PST ID and need detailed results, contrasting with the list tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the source of the pst_id (e.g., obtained from the list operation). No explicit alternatives are named.

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