get_repl_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it is non-destructive, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential authentication or data sensitivity concerns.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and lists specific data fields. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool retrieves.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It specifies what data is retrieved but omits critical behavioral details like response structure, error cases, or authentication requirements. For a tool that likely interacts with user data (e.g., comments, likes), this gap is significant.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (replId and url) as optional with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that detailed information is retrieved, which is covered by the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed repl information'), specifying what data is retrieved (comments, multiplayers, tags, run count, like count, fork count). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_repl_by_url' or 'list_repls', which might retrieve different scopes or formats of repl information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_repl_by_url' or 'list_repls'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active repl set) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the input schema alone.

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