query_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It labels itself a 'query tool' implying read-only, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what the return format is, or any effects. The referral to 'tool implementation docstring' is not part of the description and does not aid 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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, which is good. However, the second sentence directs users to external documentation rather than providing the information directly, reducing its immediate 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?

Given that no annotations exist and the tool has an output schema, the description should cover behavioral aspects and usage context. It fails to explain when to use this tool, what side effects (if any) occur, or how the output is structured. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the lack of usage guidance leaves it incomplete.

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% for the two parameters. The description adds minimal meaning: 'uri' parameter description merely repeats the advice to see the tool description for patterns, which is not provided. 'format' parameter is adequately described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it is a 'Universal resource query tool' for accessing 'any GNS3 MCP resource', clearly indicating the verb (query) and resource (any GNS3 MCP resource). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'project' or 'node', which also query specific resources.

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 its siblings. It simply calls itself 'universal' without specifying that it is intended for generic or unsupported resource access, or when a specific tool is unavailable.

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