get_fixture_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read operation via 'Return' and discloses the kinds of data available: Lightwright_ID, Inst_Type, Symbol_Name, Wattage, layer, and position. It does not discuss error behavior or prerequisites, but for a simple read-only lookup the key behavioral traits are evident.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage rationale is concise and relevant. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool's low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the clear use-case framing, the description is largely complete. It could mention what happens when the UID is invalid or cannot be found, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds that uid uses 'dotted form' and identifies a single fixture, which is useful but not fully specified. The lack of an example or explanation of the dotted form syntax leaves some ambiguity, so the parameter semantics are only partially fleshed out.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full parsed data for one fixture by UID.' The phrase 'full parsed data' distinguishes this from the sibling get_fixture_summary, which likely returns a summary rather than full details. The scope is clearly one fixture, and the UID mechanism is named.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use before planning a write.' It also explains why, by listing the fields the caller usually needs to confirm the correct fixture. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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