get_embeddings_api_v1_retrieval_ef

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is entirely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns embeddings in a specific format. The agent is left completely uninformed.

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?

At two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to deliver any useful information; every sentence (or word) must earn its place, and this one does not.

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 the complexity of the sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, this description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it relates to other embedding endpoints, or any side effects, making it impossible for the agent to understand its role.

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 description does not mention the 'text' parameter at all. It provides no clarification on input format, constraints (e.g., max length, encoding), or the meaning of null values, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Get Embeddings' simply restates the tool name, providing no additional detail. It is a verb+resource but lacks specificity about the type of embeddings (e.g., text, vector size) and fails to distinguish from similar tools like 'embeddings_api_v1_embeddings_post'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools related to retrieval and embeddings, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or scenarios.

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