get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the response is JSON with full account metadata, which is useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about auth requirements or error behavior for a missing account.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does before the usage hint. The closing sentence about the return format earns its place because no output schema exists, though it is the thinnest of the three.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and covering annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. The absence of an output schema is partly offset by the note about returned JSON metadata, though no field-level detail is given.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'account' parameter is documented as a Spinnaker account name. The description's 'by name' phrasing reinforces that this is a lookup key, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (Get) and resource (Spinnaker account) plus the key fields returned (cloud provider type, permissions, regions). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_accounts or get_application, so an agent must infer the singular-vs-plural split.

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?

Explicitly names the use case: verifying account configuration or checking permissions before deploying. That is a real decision context, but it gives no exclusions or alternative routing (e.g., 'use list_accounts to enumerate all accounts').

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