bookshelf_get_config_mediamanagement_by_id

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention return behavior, error conditions (e.g., 404 if not found), or any side effects. The annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description merely restates that with 'Fetch'.

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 short sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 trivial get-by-id operation with a readOnly annotation and an output schema present, the description is sufficient but minimal. It lacks any mention of what happens when the id is not found, but given the simplicity and existing structured annotations, this is not a critical gap. It is not as rich as descriptions that add helpful constraints or exclusions.

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 has zero description coverage for the 'id' parameter. The description says 'by id', which conveys that the id identifies the config mediamanagement record, but adds little beyond what the parameter name and tool name already imply. For a single simple parameter, this is minimal but adequate; however, it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('config mediamanagement'), and the scope ('single by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bookshelf_get_config_mediamanagement (which likely lists all) and update_config_mediamanagement.

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. It does not explicitly mention that this is for fetching a specific item by ID as opposed to listing all items, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and schema.

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