alterios_rest_get

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states read-only nature but omits crucial details like authentication requirements, error handling, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded with key details without harming conciseness.

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 5 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema that is not described, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the return format or any constraints.

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%, meaning the description must add meaning. It only mentions 'path' indirectly but does not describe the purpose or defaults of 'params', 'profile', 'project_id', or 'requires_project'. The description adds no value to the parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it performs a read-only GET request against an Alterios REST API path, specifying the verb (GET) and the resource (REST API path), distinguishing it from write siblings like alterios_rest_write.

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?

Description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., alterios_list_objects, alterios_view_data). It only implies reading via REST, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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