pool_get

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

The '[READ]' tag agrees with readOnlyHint=true, so there is no contradiction, but it adds nothing beyond what the annotation already declares. No auth requirements, rate limits, or return-shape notes are provided; with annotations covering the safety profile, this is minimally viable.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then a short Args block with exactly the two parameters. No filler sentences, though the '[READ]' prefix is redundant with the annotation.

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?

A simple read tool with two parameters, both explained, and a cross-reference to pool_list for the required uuid. No output schema exists so return values need not be described, leaving little an agent would still need.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: pool_id is identified as a pool uuid sourced from pool_list, and target is described as a Xen Orchestra target name from config with the default used when omitted. This meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 the resource (pool) and scope ('one pool by uuid'), which cleanly separates it from the list-style sibling pool_list, which it also references. 'Detail' is a slightly soft verb but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Clearly implies the trigger condition: you need one specific pool and already have its uuid, with 'see pool_list' routing the agent to the tool that supplies that uuid. No explicit when-not or alternative conditions are given, but the context is sufficient.

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