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, yet it only names return fields. It does not state read-only nature explicitly, error behavior for a bad/missing resource_id, permission requirements, or side effects. Some credit for disclosing the shape of returned data (folder flag, child_count, file_urls/file_ids).

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity reads as under-specification rather than economy: the words spent on output fields could have covered purpose and usage, especially since an output schema already exists.

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 an output schema present, the description's enumeration of return fields is redundant, and it omits the essentials an agent needs: how to obtain resource_id, the closest alternative tools, and error/side-effect behavior. Incomplete for even a trivial one-parameter getter.

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% and the single parameter resource_id has no description in either the schema or the description text. The description never explains what a resource_id is or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_resources).

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 identifies the resource (one resource's metadata) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can infer this is a single-item fetch counterpart to list_resources. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb ('retrieve/get') and never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_resources or download_resource.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative list_resources or download_resource, and no prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that resource_id likely comes from list_resources.

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