get_configuration

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. The description doesn't state whether an invalid/nonexistent ID returns an error or null, whether the configuration includes related objects (credentials, documents), or any authentication requirement. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose. However, for such a short description, one could argue it under-specifies rather than being optimally concise, though the core content is clearly presented.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the full burden. A single-parameter lookup tool with no return-value description leaves the agent uncertain about what shape the response takes. For a tool with only one parameter and a straightforward purpose, the context is minimal but apparent; however, the absence of any output/return guidance makes it incomplete for a retrieval operation.

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% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'The configuration ID'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond this, only noting the resource type (device/asset). With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't contradict but also adds little beyond the schema.

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 'Get a specific configuration (device/asset) by ID from IT Glue' with a clear verb+resource. It identifies the resource as a configuration (device/asset) and the retrieval method (by ID). However, it doesn't distinguish this from search_configurations, a sibling tool that serves a similar lookup purpose, so differentiation is absent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling search_configurations could likely find configurations by criteria other than exact ID, but the description doesn't clarify when get_configuration is preferred over search_configurations or any other sibling.

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