get_public_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that path and limit apply to sub-folders and listing, but doesn't describe the return format or error behavior. Core behavior is understandable but not fully transparent.

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 economical: one purpose sentence plus three parameter lines. No redundant information; every line is instructional.

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, the description should elaborate on return values. It says 'Get information' and hints at folder listing via path/limit, but doesn't explicitly state what the response contains (metadata, file list, etc.). This is a clear gap for a moderately complex tool.

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?

The description includes an Args section explaining each parameter: public_key (key/URL), path (sub-path within folder), limit (max items for folder). This adds meaning beyond the schema's sparse titles and defaults, compensating for 0% schema description coverage.

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 information about a public resource by its public key or URL' with a specific verb and resource type. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_metadata, but the 'public resource' qualifier adds some differentiation.

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 implies usage when you have a public key or URL, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context of sibling tools is not addressed.

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