proofpoint_events_get_details

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 indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and describes the kind of data returned ('full threat analysis and message metadata'), but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention any permissions or rate limits, or describe error conditions. While the verb implies non-destructive behavior, the description could add more transparency about what to expect.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundancy. Every word adds value: 'Get detailed information about a specific detection event, including full threat analysis and message metadata.' This is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the purpose and gives a sense of the return content ('full threat analysis and message metadata'). It does not explain return format or error handling, but given the low complexity and the mention of what is included, it is adequate. The description could be more explicit about what 'detailed information' encompasses, but it does not leave major gaps.

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 has one parameter (event_id) with a description ('The event ID to look up'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that the event is a 'detection event' and implies the ID references that event. However, it does not provide details about the ID format or where to find it, so it does not meaningfully enhance the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific detection event.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific detection event'), and mentions content ('full threat analysis and message metadata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proofpoint_events_list (which lists events) and proofpoint_events_get_stats (which gets statistics).

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 context: use this when you need details for a specific detection event, as opposed to listing events or getting stats. However, it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion scenarios. The context is clear from the tool name and description, but explicit alternatives are not named.

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