knowbe4_phishing_security_test_recipient

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned but says nothing about read-only status, pagination behavior, error conditions (e.g., what happens when recipient_id doesn't belong to the pst_id), authentication requirements, or whether the data is filtered or aggregated. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, focused sentence that conveys the purpose and output in ~15 words. It's efficient and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No wasted words or redundant phrasing, though it could arguably be slightly more informative.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, so the description serves as the sole source of behavioral information. The description explains the return fields (click time, open time, reported status) which is useful, but it's incomplete for a tool that fetches detailed results. It doesn't mention additional fields that might be present, or clarify relationships to the sibling 'recipients' list tool, leaving the agent to guess whether this returns richer data than the list endpoint. Adequate but with clear gaps for a detail-fetch tool.

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 (pst_id and recipient_id) already described in the input schema. The description adds context about what combining these parameters yields (the recipient's detailed PST result) but doesn't add detail beyond what the schema provides regarding parameter formats or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters well.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('specific recipient's detailed result for a PST') and enumerates the data fields returned (click time, open time, reported status). It's clear in what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like knowbe4_phishing_security_test_recipients or knowbe4_phishing_security_test_get, though the singular 'specific recipient' vs plural recipients is implicitly distinguishing.

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 usage context (getting a single recipient's detailed result within a PST) is implied by the description and the presence of pst_id + recipient_id parameters. However, there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from the siblings knowbe4_phishing_security_test_recipients (which presumably lists all recipients) or knowbe4_phishing_security_test_get (which gets the PST itself). No exclusions or caveats are stated.

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