get_backplane

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond these annotations. Since the description does not contradict annotations (score 1 would be for contradiction), a 3 is appropriate as it meets the basic expectation without adding extra 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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words, and it earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is adequately complete. The annotations cover behavioral aspects, and the output schema likely defines return values. While the description could briefly mention the output, it is not critical for this simple get-by-id 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter documentation. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter name 'backplane_id'. For a single required parameter, the name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of any additional info (e.g., format, example) results in a score of 2.

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 'Retrieve a single backplane by id' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and specific resource (single backplane by id). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'list_backplanes' which returns multiple backplanes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for fetching a specific backplane via its id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_backplane_history' or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are provided, so the guidance is minimal.

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