describe_operations

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating what the documentation contains: parameter types, ranges, units, defaults, JSON schema, maskability, and examples.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the count constraint, and the returned documentation fields without any wasted text.

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 read-only introspection tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the returned documentation content and the 1-50 id limit, though it could mention where operation ids come from.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single ids parameter. The description compensates partially by clarifying that these are operation ids and that between 1 and 50 may be supplied, but it does not explain the id format or where to obtain valid ids.

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 that this tool returns full documentation for operation ids, including specific documentation fields. It distinguishes itself from list_operations implicitly by describing documentation retrieval rather than listing, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby tools such as describe_tool.

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: call this when you already have operation ids and need detailed documentation. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_operations or describe_tool, nor does it state prerequisites such as obtaining ids first.

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