proofpoint_dlp_get_incident

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the nature of the response content (matched rules, sensitive data types, metadata), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention potential error conditions or authorization requirements, though the 'Get' verb implicitly suggests read-only behavior.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the specific data categories. No redundant or extraneous words are used.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description sufficiently explains the purpose and gives an overview of return content. While it could be more exhaustive about the response structure, it covers the essential parts for a simple get operation. Given the low complexity, it is nearly 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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameter (incident_id) with 'The DLP incident ID.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, keeping the score at the baseline of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'detailed information about a specific DLP incident.' It further specifies the content (matched rules, sensitive data types, message metadata), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like proofpoint_dlp_list_incidents that list incidents rather than fetch details for a specific one.

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 phrase 'specific DLP incident' implies that this tool is for when you already have an incident ID and need detailed information, as opposed to listing incidents. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention prerequisites like needing an incident ID from a list operation.

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