pool_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It declares the operation as a read using '[READ]', indicating no side effects, but does not elaborate on permissions, rate limits, or output behavior. This is sufficient for a simple get tool.

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 very concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists parameter details clearly. Every sentence adds value.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and context. It could mention what the output contains, but the absence is not critical given the self-explanatory nature.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: pool_id is explained as 'Pool uuid (see pool_list)' and target as 'Xen Orchestra target name from config'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates.

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 action (READ), resource (pool), and how to identify it (by uuid). The '[READ]' prefix and verb 'get' distinguish it from sibling tools like pool_list and pool_patch_ha_posture.

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 (fetch details for a specific pool) and references pool_list for obtaining the uuid, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. The guidance is adequate but minimal.

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