scm_get_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Get[s] a single address object,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the UUID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more polished for readability.

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's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'address_id' is a 'UUID of the address object' and 'tsg_id' is an 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with a default, which clarifies parameter roles beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't fully cover semantics like format details or usage examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('a single address object by UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scm_list_addresses' or 'scm_get_address_group', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single record rather than a list or a different resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'scm_list_addresses' for listing multiple addresses or 'scm_get_address_group' for a different resource, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without explicit direction.

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