get_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or that it is safe. A simple 'Reads and returns tool details without side effects' would improve transparency.

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?

Single, concise sentence. No wasted words, but it is minimal. Could include more context without harming conciseness.

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?

For a simple get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it does not hint at the return structure or any prerequisites (e.g., tool must exist), which would be helpful for the agent.

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?

The input schema covers toolId with 100% description, so the description adds no additional semantics. Baseline at 3 is appropriate. It could clarify the expected format (e.g., UUID), but is not necessary.

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 'Gets details of a specific tool' clearly identifies the action (getting) and the resource (tool). It distinguishes from siblings like list_tools by specifying a single tool. However, it omits what specific details are retrieved, making it slightly less than perfectly clear.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like list_tools. The description does not mention that this tool is for retrieving a single tool by ID, while list_tools is for enumerating all tools. This lack of differentiation forces the agent to infer usage.

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