load_api_operation_by_operationId

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

Given no annotations exist, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the return type as 'JSON string containing the complete operation details or null if not found,' which informs the agent about output and failure behavior. The mandatory prerequisite step is also a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, though 'load' implies this.

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 well-structured: a bolded prerequisite, a one-line purpose, and concise Args/Returns documentation. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy. The format is easy to parse and front-loads the critical prerequisite.

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 one-parameter load tool, the description covers all necessary context: prerequisite, function, parameter semantics, return format, and null case. The existence of an output schema means the return structure need not be explained further. The description is complete given the tool's simplicity and available metadata.

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 input schema only specifies `operation_id` with type and title, lacking any description (0% coverage). The description compensates by providing an Args block explaining 'The unique operation ID to load.' This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, clarifying the nature and purpose of the parameter.

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's function: 'Load a specific operation by its operationId.' It uses a specific verb 'Load' and identifies the resource (operation) and the key identifier (operationId). This distinguishes it from sibling 'load_api_operation_by_path_and_method', which uses a different identification scheme.

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 gives explicit usage guidance by mandating 'Make Sure you have Called FIRST_STEP_get_api_script_guide first before this tool.' This establishes a clear precondition and ordering. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite and phrasing imply it is used when an operationId is known and one needs the full operation details.

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