Describe a resource

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real behavior: what data comes back (type, IaC attributes, all relationship directions) and how fuzzy matching resolves, including returning candidate choices on ambiguity. It does not mention cost or size limits on large relationship sets, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope and return contents, followed by the matching rule. No redundant or filler wording.

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 only two required, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape information (type, attributes, relationships) plus the ambiguity path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 defines both graphId and resource, and the description's 'id, name, or substring' largely restates the schema entry. Its only addition is the ambiguity-resolution outcome, which is a modest gain over the structured data.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') on a specific resource ('one resource in an ArcSync diagram') and enumerates exactly what is returned: type, IaC attributes, and inbound/outbound relationships. Scope ('one resource') implicitly separates it from whole-diagram siblings like get_diagram, though no sibling is named.

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?

When-to-use is only implied by the singular-resource scope; it never says to prefer get_diagram for a full diagram or get_diagram_source for raw source. The one explicit procedural hint is about ambiguous matches returning candidates, which is useful but is a result-handling rule rather than tool-selection guidance.

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