Get container details

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

Annotations fully declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'detailed information' but offers no specifics on what that entails (e.g., return fields, pagination, performance). Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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 wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific without losing conciseness.

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 the tool is a simple get operation with excellent annotation coverage and full param schema, the description is adequate. It does not mention typical return fields (e.g., status, image), but no output schema exists to compensate.

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% and both parameters are clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond 'specific container', so baseline score applies.

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 'container', creating a specific action. Among sibling tools like list, create, delete, etc., this tool is unambiguously for retrieving a single container's details.

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 one needs detailed information on a specific container, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., arcane_container_list vs get_counts) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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