accelo_get_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says to get a resource; it does not disclose whether this returns metadata only versus the binary attachment (relevant given the sibling accelo_download_resource_url), nor anything about permissions, auth, or error behavior for a missing ID.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence and args consolidated below. No wasted prose, though the Args block is essentially a terse restatement rather than added value.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a 0%-coverage schema, the description should do more work. It leaves unclear what is actually returned (metadata vs content), the shape of 'fields', and how it relates to the download sibling, all of which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does minimally document both parameters ('id: Resource ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return'). It adds basic meaning but gives no format for 'fields' (comma-separated? list?) and no type expectations.

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?

States a specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'resource (attachment) by ID', and the parenthetical clarifies that a resource is an attachment, which disambiguates it from other nouns in the sibling set. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like accelo_list_resources or accelo_download_resource_url beyond the singular/plural implication.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this instead of accelo_list_resources or accelo_download_resource_url. The 'by ID' phrasing implies single-item retrieval, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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