get_operations

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 ('fetch') and discloses a token-cost concern, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether resources must be added first, error behaviors, or any side effects, leaving notable gaps. The status line about 'no resources added yet' adds a dynamic state but not stable behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the purpose clearly stated in the first sentence. The second sentence about current resources is arguably useful but feels like a status update rather than a durable behavior note. No redundant phrasing, but it could be tighter.

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 tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description explains what it does and distinguishes it from a sibling. However, it does not describe the return structure, error cases, or the dependency on add_resource. The note about 'no resources added yet' is a hint but not a full explanation. Overall, adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'operations' correspond to op_ids and mentions 'resource', giving general meaning. However, it lacks detail on the format or specific values expected (e.g., are op_ids names or IDs?), and does not clarify what qualifies as a resource. This is sufficient for a basic understanding but not comprehensive.

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 tool fetches full schemas (params, request body, response) for one or more operations, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling list_operations by noting that schemas dominate token cost, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by separating this tool from list_operations and explaining the reason (schemas dominate token cost). This implies when to use this tool vs the alternative, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer other alternatives. The 'currently added resources' note hints at a prerequisite but is not phrased as guidance.

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