Get Edge Compute

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's '[READ]' prefix simply repeats that safety profile without adding anything. It discloses nothing beyond the annotations—no error behavior for missing IDs, no auth/permission notes, no response characteristics.

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 short line, so it is not bloated, but the space is spent on a redundant '[READ]' tag and a path restatement rather than on useful content. Concise but under-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?

For a read tool with no output schema and only safety annotations, the description leaves the agent without resource meaning, parameter semantics, or relationship to sibling tools. It is too thin to call correctly with confidence.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It implicitly names the path parameter but provides no format, source, or validation guidance for edge_compute_id beyond the schema's minLength constraint.

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 restates the tool name and title as an HTTP endpoint ('GET /edge-computes/{edgeComputeId}') without explaining what an edge compute is or what the returned resource represents. It offers no differentiation from the sibling list_edge_computes or deploy_edge_compute beyond the singular-vs-list convention. This is essentially a tautology of the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative list_edge_computes, and no stated prerequisites or context for choosing this tool. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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