supervisor_get_addon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. While the operation is likely read-only, this is not explicitly stated. The description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or the nature of 'full info,' leaving behavioral traits ambiguous.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. However, given the tool's role among many supervisor tools, additional context about prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the slug exists) or a link to list_addons would improve completeness. The description is adequate but lacks nuance.

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 has a single 'slug' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that the slug identifies the add-on, which compensates for the missing schema description. The meaning is clear, though minimal.

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), the resource (full info for an add-on), and the identifier (by slug). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_addon_logs and get_addon_stats by specifying 'full info'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as supervisor_list_addons (to get slugs) or get_addon_logs. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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