get_ext_remedy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the raw endpoint path and repeats the title, offering no extra behavioral context such as error behavior for an unknown id or whether a missing remedy errors versus returns empty.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler sentences. The bracketed HTTP path is mostly redundant with the tool contract but costs little.

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 simple single-resource read with a fully described schema and read-only annotations, the essentials are present. It is still thin on output expectations (no output schema exists) and never defines what a remedy is in this troubleshooting domain.

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 'remedyId' and 'x-trace-id' are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by id' merely restates the required parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('remedy') scoped to a single item by id, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_ext_remedies. It does not, however, distinguish it from get_ext_check or clarify what a 'remedy' object is relative to the other troubleshooting tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_ext_remedies, get_ext_check, or start_ext_remedy, nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing remedy id. The agent must infer the fit from the get/list naming pattern alone.

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