mgmt_operation_get

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 only says 'Get operation by ID', which implies a read-only action, but it does not disclose what an 'operation' is, whether the operation result is returned synchronously, what errors occur for invalid IDs, or any security/authorization context. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely short, but the leading raw URL 'https://yandex.ru/dev/metrika/ru/management/' provides no immediate information and is placed before the actual descriptive sentence. The phrase 'Get operation by ID' is economical with no fluff, yet the structure is awkward and the URL does not earn its position.

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 at least indicate what the response contains or how the operation resource is identified, but it does not. It also lacks any clarification of the business context (asynchronous operations) that would help an agent decide whether to call this versus a sibling. The tool is barely sufficient for a simple getter but leaves key usage context undeclared.

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 input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in the schema (e.g., 'Counter ID', 'Operation ID'). The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond 'by ID', so the schema carries the load. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema is adequate and the description does not need to compensate.

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 a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'operation' and identifies the lookup key 'by ID', making it clear this tool fetches a single operation. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like mgmt_operations_list (list) and mgmt_operation_update/delete because it is the 'get' counterpart, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention preconditions, such as the need for an operationId from mgmt_operations_list, nor does it exclude other getters or list operations. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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