api_nfd_get_nfd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It also doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get a specific NFD by name or by its application ID.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the tool's basic function.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like pagination ('itemsPerPage') or network defaults. For a tool with multiple optional parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'view' options or when to use 'poll' or 'nocache.' It only reiterates the primary parameter ('name or application ID') without providing context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 purpose: 'Get a specific NFD by name or by its application ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('NFD'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'api_nfd_browse_nfds' or 'api_nfd_search_nfds' by focusing on retrieving a single NFD. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'api_nfd_get_nfd_activity' or 'api_nfd_get_nfd_analytics,' which are also get operations but for different data types, so it's not fully sibling-aware.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'api_nfd_browse_nfds' (for browsing multiple NFDs) or 'api_nfd_search_nfds' (for searching NFDs), nor does it specify prerequisites, such as network selection or authentication needs. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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