proofpoint_forensics_get_threat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the output contents but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, does not mention any permissions or rate limits, and does not explain the effect of the 'includeCampaignForensics' parameter. The verb 'Get' and 'Returns' imply read-only behavior, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the return types. Every word contributes; no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return contents. However, it lacks context on when to use this versus the other forensics and threat tools, and it does not explain the effect of the optional parameter on the returned evidence. The schema fills the parameter gap, but the broader tool ecosystem context is missing.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters ('threat_id' and 'includeCampaignForensics'), so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond 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 retrieves forensic evidence for a specific threat and lists the types of evidence returned (behavioral analysis, network activity, file modifications). It distinguishes from sibling tools like proofpoint_forensics_get_campaign by focusing on a single threat rather than a campaign, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when forensic evidence for a specific threat is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as proofpoint_forensics_get_campaign or proofpoint_threat_get_by_id. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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