invariance_operator_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the JWT bearer requirement, which is useful auth context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about behavior on missing IDs or response format. This is modest added value.

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 front-loaded sentence: the action and object come first, followed by the auth prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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-only, fetch-by-ID tool with complete schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the operation, the required param, and auth. It could mention what the return value represents (the operator object), but that is largely implied by 'Fetch.'

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% and the only parameter 'id' is documented as 'Operator ID.' The description's phrase 'by ID' reuses that meaning but adds no additional syntax, format, or domain semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a concrete resource ('operator'), and an identifier ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like invariance_operator_list (multiple operators) and invariance_operator_me (current operator).

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 implies the use case: fetch a specific operator when you have an ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use operator_list to retrieve all operators' or 'use operator_me for the current operator.'

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