get_starship

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implicitly indicates a read operation ('Get details') but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as exact-name matching, case sensitivity, or behavior when the ship is not found. This is acceptable for a simple lookup but lacks explicit behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, listing both the action and the key output fields.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context by enumerating the returned attributes. It could be more complete by noting potential errors or format, but given the low complexity and high schema coverage, it is largely sufficient.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter, including an example. The description adds value by listing what the returned details will include, but it does not need to further explain the parameter syntax, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('a Star Trek starship') and enumerates the attributes returned (class, registry, armaments, crew complement). This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_episode or character_lookup.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need details about a starship. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific phrasing provides clear context among the many sibling tools.

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