tf_show_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by specifying 'never locks, never refreshes' and detailing the redaction policy (Terraform markers, equal values, secret-like names/shapes) plus a footer explaining what was hidden. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: identity and source first, then safety, then redaction behavior. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description helps by explaining the read-only nature and the redaction footer that accompanies results. It could say a bit more about result shape (e.g., flattened attribute list, truncation), but it is largely complete for a single-resource read tool.

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 all four parameters (dir, address, include_null, max_value_chars) are documented in the schema with defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format information beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show one resource instance's attribute values') plus the exact source ('from the current Terraform state (terraform show -json)'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tf_state_addresses, which would list addresses rather than dump an instance's attributes.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the address parameter description points to tf_state_addresses as the source of a valid address, suggesting a follow-on workflow. However, the description itself never says when to use this over alternatives or any when-not conditions. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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