ledfx_get_virtual

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

The description only implies a read operation by saying 'get', but lacks any behavioral details such as that it is non-destructive, requires no special authentication, or what happens if the virtual ID does not exist. Without annotations, the description fails to disclose these important traits.

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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose, such as mentioning typical response fields.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and the tool returns detailed information, the description should at least hint at the type of data returned (e.g., configuration, status). As it stands, 'detailed information' is vague and insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.

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% and the schema already describes the virtual_id parameter clearly. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'get detailed information' and the resource 'specific virtual', distinguishing it from siblings like ledfx_list_virtuals which lists all virtuals. However, it could be more precise about what 'detailed information' entails.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that ledfx_list_virtuals should be used to get identifiers before querying a specific virtual, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or when not to use it.

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