detail_4

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The single word 'detail' reveals nothing about whether this is a read/write operation, what permissions are needed, what data it returns, or any side effects. This provides zero behavioral transparency for a tool with unknown functionality.

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?

While technically concise with a single word, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information about the tool's purpose or behavior. In the context of tool documentation, this level of brevity is inadequate rather than efficient.

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 complete lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides only the tool name repeated, this description is completely inadequate. Even with zero parameters, the tool's purpose, behavior, and differentiation from similar tools remain completely undocumented, making it impossible for an agent to understand when or how to use it.

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 tool has zero parameters (parameter count: 0) with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter information, the baseline for zero parameters is appropriately set at 4 since no parameter semantics are required.

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 'detail' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what resource it details or what action it performs. It provides no verb+resource combination and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'detail', 'detail_1', 'detail_2', etc. This fails to communicate any meaningful purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple similar tools in the sibling list (detail, detail_1, detail_2, detail_3, detail_5, etc.), there's no indication of what differentiates this specific tool or when it should be selected over others. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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