get_sio

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 correctly indicates this is a read operation (returns details) and identifies a potential source of confusion (parameter key type). However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or authentication needs, which would be helpful for a simple read tool.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and the wrapper; the second is a focused caveat about the parameter key. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool with a clear schema, the description is nearly complete. It addresses a potential ambiguity that could cause errors (the parameter key mismatch) and references a discovery mechanism. The only minor gap is a lack of output format description, but that is not critical since no output schema exists and the purpose is straightforward.

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%, so the schema already explains the SIOKEY parameter and even recommends using get_sios to discover keys. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond clarifying that SIOKEY (not MERCURYKEY) is used, which is a useful nuance but not essential given the schema's clarity.

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 returns details for a single SIO given its SIOKEY, wrapping NBAPI GetSio. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_sios (which lists keys) and other get_* tools that target different resources.

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 explicitly notes that SIOKEY is used rather than MERCURYKEY, despite a discrepancy in the v2 guide's worked example, and cites the authoritative Calling Parameters list. This directly guides correct usage and prevents misuse, indicating when to trust the description over the guide.

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