bookshelf_get_config_ui_by_id

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent with that. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context, such as 'single' and 'by id', but does not disclose return formats, error handling, or other nuances beyond the annotation. With the annotation covering safety, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch', and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient and directly to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-item fetch tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. The output schema handles return values, and the annotation covers safety. However, it could have mentioned potential conditions like 'returns 404 if not found' or when to use the alternative list tool, but these are not critical for a basic get-by-id operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id' but does not explicitly clarify that the parameter 'id' is the config ui's unique identifier or describe any format constraints beyond the schema's integer type. The connection is implicit, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Fetch a single config ui by id' clearly specifies the verb (fetch), resource (config ui), and scope (by id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_config_ui (which likely returns a list) and update_config_ui by focusing specifically on fetching a single config ui by its identifier.

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: use this tool when you have a specific config ui id and need the corresponding record. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'to list all, use bookshelf_get_config_ui'). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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