Get Worklet Detail

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds context about returned content but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like performance, pagination, or authentication requirements. With annotations, the burden is lower, but the description adds minimal behavioral value.

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 with no redundancy. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 read-only detail tool with good annotations, the description covers what is returned (codes, requirements). It lacks explicit return format details, but the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable. Overall, near-complete for its complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions returned content but does not explain the purpose or usage of the input parameters (item_id, output_format). This is inadequate for guiding parameter input.

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 tool retrieves detailed information for a specific community worklet, listing included components (evaluation code, remediation code, requirements). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_worklet_catalog which searches worklets.

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 for getting worklet details after identifying a worklet ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., search_worklet_catalog) or any exclusions.

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