dl_operation_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that returns are 'compact' by default and that lookup is exact-match rather than fuzzy, but it says nothing about the include_detail flag that toggles the detailed form, which is the one behavioral lever an agent would want explained.

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 zero filler; the scope qualifier and lookup mode are front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably it is short because it omits needed information rather than because it is tightly edited.

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 two-parameter read-by-ID tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, one sentence is close to sufficient. However, include_detail's effect and the distinction from dl_operation_reconcile are both absent, so an agent lacks the last pieces needed to call it optimally.

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 both parameters. 'By exact ID' does convey that operation_id is an exact-match key rather than a pattern, and 'compact' faintly implies a non-compact counterpart, but include_detail is never named or explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb (Read), a specific resource (a single modifying-operation record), and the lookup mode (by exact ID, one record). An agent can distinguish this from a list/search tool, but it never names or contrasts with the near sibling dl_operation_reconcile, which also targets operation records.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (dl_operation_reconcile, dl_object_get), and no stated prerequisites. The only implicit hint is 'by exact ID', which tells the agent it must already hold an ID, but nothing routes it here versus elsewhere.

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