Get OpenConstruction resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get one resource' but does not mention what happens for missing/unknown IDs, whether an error or null is returned, or any access prerequisites. This is a notable gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and parameters.

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 two-parameter getter, the description is mostly adequate, but because there is no output schema or annotations, it would benefit from stating what is returned or how failures are represented. Still, the tool is straightforward enough that this is a moderate gap rather than a critical one.

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 does confirm that 'type' and 'id' are the lookup identifiers, but it adds little beyond the schema itself. The enum values in the schema already communicate the allowed resource types, and the description does not explain id format or semantics further.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('one resource by type and id'), which is specific and distinguishable from list/search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tool get_skill, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 phrase 'by type and id' implies this should be used when the agent already knows the exact resource type and identifier. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool routing is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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