get_terminal

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. It only states that the tool 'gets' a terminal, implying a read operation, but it does not describe what happens if the terminal is not found, any access requirements, or whether the response is a single object versus a wrapped result.

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 entire description is one clean sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the two required identifiers. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are already covered. However, the description is sparse: it omits usage guidance, alternative routing, and edge-case behavior such as not-found handling. For a basic get-by-composite-key tool this is minimally viable, but there are clear gaps around when to use it.

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%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does this by explaining that terminal_code is 'branch-local,' clarifying that the key is composite and that codes are scoped per branch. This is valuable disambiguation beyond the raw schema property names, though it does not fully specify formats or constraints.

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 the resource 'one terminal,' specifying that it retrieves a single record by two identifiers. It is distinct from list_terminals because it uses 'one' rather than 'list,' but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings like list_terminals or get_branch. There is no context for when a user needs a single terminal by composite key versus a list or branch-level retrieval, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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