get_ribbon_definition

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses significant behavior: it validates and decompresses a bounded ZIP part without extraction or execution, returns a summary by default with full XML opt-in, and explicitly excludes security evaluation, JavaScript execution, merged-definition editing, and modern commanding. This is strong behavioral context for a read-only inspection 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 front-loaded with the core action and covers behavior efficiently in a few sentences. It is dense with jargon and could be organized more clearly, but it contains little outright waste.

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 complex 7-parameter read tool with no output schema or parameter descriptions, the description explains output summary behavior and safety limits but omits essential parameter guidance and sibling routing. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without inspecting the schema in detail.

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%, with 7 parameters including logical_name/logicalName, top, includeXml/include_xml, and locationFilter/location_filter. The description only indirectly hints at includeXml via 'full XML is opt-in' and does not explain logicalName, top, location filtering, or alias behavior, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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: read the native effective classic entity Ribbon via RetrieveEntityRibbon, and it summarizes the output. It distinguishes scope from modern commanding and editing tools, though it does not directly differentiate from sibling inspect_ribbon_solution.

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 scope exclusions such as not evaluating security, not executing JavaScript, not editing merged definitions, and no modern commanding support. However, it does not state when to use this rather than inspect_ribbon_solution or edit_ribbon_solution, nor does it name alternatives.

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