ise_openapi_radius_dictionary_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 identifies the HTTP verb (GET) in the title context but doesn't disclose what happens for a non-existent name, authentication requirements, or what dictionary fields will be returned. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, minimal behavioral detail is provided.

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 compact with the endpoint path embedded as reference. It's front-loaded with the purpose and includes the HTTP method. While minimal, every piece serves structure; the deployment parameter description carries the explanatory weight. No filler or redundancy.

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 2 parameters fully documented in schema, no output schema (simple dictionary fetch), and no nested objects, the tool is relatively simple. The description is adequate but lacks detail on return value structure and edge-case behavior (e.g., 404 when dictionary not found). For a simple GET tool this is near-adequate but could clarify what a 'dictionary' entails in this context.

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 both parameters are already documented. The deployment parameter adds multi-deployment context with example values (name, slug, number) and pointers to ise_list_deployments, going beyond mere schema. This adds meaningful operational semantics beyond the raw schema fields.

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 states 'GET a dictionary by name' with the endpoint path, which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from its sibling ise_openapi_radius_dictionary_list, and the '[Policy: Network Access]' prefix is context rather than function. The phrase 'GET a dictionary by name' is functional but not rich enough to fully differentiate.

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 implies this retrieves a single dictionary by name but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. the sibling list tool (ise_openapi_radius_dictionary_list) or when to prefer it over other OpenAPI dict tools. The deployment parameter provides some context but no when/when-not guidance.

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