get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the return includes frontend web URL, but it omits whether this is a read-only operation, permission requirements, error behavior for missing slugs, or rate limits.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. Every phrase earns its place.

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 get tool with full schema description coverage, the description is mostly complete: it states the lookup key and hints at return content. It could say more about what 'full details' includes or what happens when the slug is not found, but the core call contract is clear.

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%, including a clear enum for resource_type and a slug example, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and scope ('a single resource by slug'), and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling batch_get and from search/list. The resource type is generic, but the schema enum supplies the concrete domain.

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?

Usage is implied by 'single resource by slug' and 'full details', suggesting it is for detail retrieval rather than searching or listing. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and alternatives like batch_get or search are never named.

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