get_unit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what 'data' is returned or any side effects. With annotations present, the description does not contribute additional transparency.

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 of 5 words, front-loaded with the verb. No extraneous information, making it efficient for an AI agent to process.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of two parameters, the description could specify what unit data is returned or the effect of the 'with' parameter. The current description is too minimal to be fully complete for a tool with these features.

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 coverage is 100% with both unit_id and with parameters described. The description only mentions 'specified unit' implying unit_id but does not explain the optional 'with' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter definition, and the description adds little extra meaning.

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 'Returns data of specified unit' clearly states the verb 'returns' and the resource 'data of specified unit', making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from list_units and other get_ tools by implying a single unit retrieval, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_units or other get_ tools. The description lacks explicit context for usage, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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