sr_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation with '[READ]' but fails to disclose what 'detail' includes, whether any side effects exist, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured behavioral metadata.

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 extremely concise—two short lines for the purpose and a bullet list for arguments. No redundant words, and the '[READ]' prefix immediately communicates the operation type. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description should hint at the return value. It does not explain what fields constitute the 'detail.' For a simple get tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness compared to siblings that might have richer descriptions.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context for both parameters: sr_id is explained as 'SR uuid (see sr_list)' and target as 'Xen Orchestra target name from config; omit for the default.' This helps beyond the raw schema but does not provide exhaustive details like format constraints.

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 starts with '[READ]' and explicitly says 'Detail for one SR by uuid.' This clearly communicates the verb (read/get), the resource (SR), and the identifier (uuid). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sr_list (list) and sr_rescan (rescan).

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 hints at usage by referencing sr_list to obtain the uuid and notes that the target can be omitted for default. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sr_rescan, sr_usage_rca) or provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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