get_udf_details

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only says 'Get detailed UDF information.' It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, if authentication is required, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned.

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 with one sentence, no wasted words. However, it sacrifices content for brevity; some additional context would improve it without harming conciseness.

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 tool has one required parameter and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention prerequisites, error conditions, or to clarify what 'details' means. An output schema exists but is not referenced.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the udf_id parameter beyond its name. It does not explain the expected format, source, or constraints of the ID, leaving the agent to infer.

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 verb (Get) and resource (detailed UDF information), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_udf (likely simpler) or list_udfs (listing vs details), so differentiation is missing.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_udf, list_udfs_detailed), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions.

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