Show Generic Tool Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds 'Returns a JSON object' which is minimal. It does not elaborate on response structure, rate limits, or authentication beyond the endpoint URL. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description adds limited value.

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 paragraph of moderate length, including a documentation link and endpoint URL. It is front-loaded with the purpose but includes some redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Custom - Configurable Tools' repeated). Could be more concise by omitting the endpoint details and focusing on behavior.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, including pagination ('page', 'per_page') that are confusing for a single-item retrieval endpoint. The description does not clarify why pagination is present or how the 'view' parameter affects the response. No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return shape better than 'JSON object'. Given the complexity and gaps, the description is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters but adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters like 'view' (with enums) or pagination parameters 'page' and 'per_page', which are unusual for a single-item endpoint. Schema descriptions are sufficient, so score remains at baseline.

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 clearly states 'Get the details of a single Generic Tool Item' and 'fetch the full details of a specific Custom - Configurable Tools by its identifier.' It distinguishes from list and batch operations by emphasizing a single item. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'show_generic_tool_item_v1_0', which might cause confusion.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details...' and lists required parameters, providing basic usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools like 'list_generic_tool_items' for multiple items. The guidance is adequate but not comprehensive.

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