ise_ers_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the resource/id is unsupported, pagination/format behavior, or error handling. For an object retrieval tool, the safety profile (read-only) is a notable gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool. However, given that it's a generic tool covering many resources, slightly more guidance about the resource parameter could merit inclusion.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. The tool is generic across dozens of resource types with no behavioral details about what a GET returns, response format, or limitations per resource. Given the complexity of a tool handling 80+ resource types, more contextual explanation would be warranted, though the generic purpose is reasonably clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, resource, deployment) with meaningful descriptions. The resource enum references ise_ers_resources for supported operations, and deployment references ise_list_deployments. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 'Retrieve a single ERS object by its ID' clearly states a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (ERS object by ID). However, it is generic and does not distinguish itself from the many sibling get_* tools (ise_ers_get_downloadableacl, ise_ers_get_sgt, etc.) or clarify that it is the generic resource-type-based variant versus the specific per-resource getters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the numerous specific per-resource get tools (ise_ers_get_endpoint, ise_ers_get_sgt, etc.) present in siblings. It also doesn't mention how to discover which resources support get operations beyond the schema enum pointing to ise_ers_resources. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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