ausca_get_offerResolve one active offer or an exact immutable revision, including the schema and revision digests required to construct a valid invocation envelope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer_id | Yes | ||
| revision_digest | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining active versus exact immutable revision semantics and noting that the result includes the schema and revision digests needed to build an invocation envelope.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the core action and then adds the most important related detail about digests and schema.
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?
Given the small parameter set, clear annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential resolution behavior and why the result matters. It is slightly incomplete only in not routing the agent to sibling tools for discovery or listing.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate, and it partially does: 'active offer' maps to offer_id and 'exact immutable revision' clarifies revision_digest. However, it does not explicitly explain which parameter is required, that revision_digest is optional, or how the two parameters interact when both are present.
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 ('Resolve') and a clear resource ('one active offer or an exact immutable revision'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like ausca_search_offers by emphasizing exact single-offer resolution and the revision/schema digests needed for an invocation envelope.
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 does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It implies use when you need a specific offer or immutable revision with its digests, but it leaves the agent to infer that discovery/search belongs to ausca_search_offers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: inbox list/read/delete/attachment/status, browser connect/close/status, invocation get/cancel/prepare, and offer search/get. Although messages vs read and status could appear similar, the descriptions clearly separate bulk summaries, single-message reads, and lease state. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
All names share the uniform ausca_ lowercase snake_case prefix and are grouped by functional area, making the overall pattern easy to predict. However, the final segment alternates between verb actions (delete, read, connect, cancel, prepare) and noun resources (attachment, messages, status), so it is not a strict verb_noun convention. This is a minor inconsistency rather than chaotic naming.
Thirteen tools cover three distinct functional areas, each with a focused set of operations and no obvious redundancy. This sits comfortably in the ideal 3–15 range and every tool appears necessary for the server's purpose.
The inbox lifecycle is well covered with list/read/attachment/status/delete, and invocation/offer areas support the key operations of search, resolve, prepare, get, and cancel. Creating a browser session or actually submitting an invocation appears intentionally externalized to the transport or offer terms, so there are only minor gaps rather than dead ends.