avanan_get_exception

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without stating that the operation is read-only, what happens if the ID is not found (e.g., null or error), or any authentication/permission requirements. For a simple get, this might be acceptable, but the lack of any explicit behavioral detail is a notable gap.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action ('Get one whitelist or blacklist entry') is front-loaded, followed by the key identifier. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 two fully described parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks any mention of the return format or error behavior, especially since there is no output schema. An agent might wonder what fields are returned or how failures are signaled, which could affect correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description adds minimal value—only rephrasing 'excId' as 'entity ID'—which is redundant. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't introduce new meaning.

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 the verb (Get), the resource (one whitelist or blacklist entry), and the identifier (entity ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_exceptions, add_exception, update_exception, and delete_exception by focusing on a single entry retrieval.

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 its usage—retrieve a specific entry when you know its ID—which contrasts with list_exceptions for all entries. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. The context is clear but not fully defined.

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