get_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that four resource families are reachable through one entry point and says nothing about what happens when all three optional parameters are omitted, or what lookup precedence applies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved by omitting substance rather than by compression.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a three-parameter universal lookup tool with zero parameter documentation in either schema or description, the caller has no way to construct a valid request. This is materially 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 description coverage is 0% and all three parameters (uri, identifier, resource_type) are nullable with no defaults documented. The description adds no meaning to any of them — not what an identifier looks like, not the accepted resource_type values, not how uri and identifier interact.

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?

States a verb (retrieve) and lists resource kinds (scene, library, theme, element), but the four kinds are not defined and two of them collide with dedicated siblings (get_scene, get_element), so an agent cannot tell whether this is a superset or an unrelated path.

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 indication of when to call this instead of get_scene, get_element, or describe_scene. The phrase 'unified interface' hints at generality but never says which call wins for a given resource type.

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