acronis_fetch_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not mention that the optional query parameters can expand the payload with attributes or links, nor what happens for an unknown or malformed ID.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the key identifying constraint (by ID) surfaced immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 no output schema, the description could reasonably say what a single-resource fetch returns and why one might request embedded attributes or links. For a simple read-by-ID tool with fully documented parameters this is adequate, but the expansion options and error behavior are left unexplained.

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 nested path and query parameters, including the mutually exclusive include_attributes / include_attribute_namespaces pair, are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the ID requirement, adding no meaning beyond structured 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 a specific verb and resource ('Gets one resource ... by ID') and clarifies the resource scope with examples (machine, mailbox, other workload), which separates it from the plural acronis_fetch_resources. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this when you already have an ID versus acronis_search or acronis_fetch_resources when you do not. The only usage signal is the phrase 'by ID', which an agent must infer as the selection condition.

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