Idm Get Structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the response is the gateway's own nested JSON and that hidden/development sections are included, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or error behavior. It adds real context yet leaves the safety/behavioral profile partly unstated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and followed immediately by the routing rule. The get("") reference is slightly technical but earns its place by clarifying the fetch semantics; no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The description covers what it fetches, how it differs from idm_get_parameters, and the section granularity. Only the permission/side-effect profile is thin, which is a minor gap for a read tool.

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%, so the schema already documents path, device, and options in detail. The description only gestures at the underlying get("") mechanism and the 'whole sub-structure' scope, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource ('Fetch a whole sub-structure') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling idm_get_parameters. The example sections ("cfg", "ch/PGA_in") anchor the resource meaning concretely.

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?

Directly names the alternative ('Use this instead of `idm_get_parameters`') and the condition that selects it (when you want the gateway's own nested JSON for one section). Explicit when/when-not routing to a sibling.

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