get_detail_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (gets details) without mentioning whether it is read-only, any required permissions, potential errors, or the structure of the returned detail. The word 'get' implies a read operation, but no additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 that front-loads the core meaning ('Mendapatkan detail lengkap'). It is brief and gets to the point quickly, though 'detail lengkap' and 'termasuk data detail/nilai-nilainya' are slightly redundant. No wasted words overall.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the basic purpose. It mentions that details include 'data detail/nilai-nilainya', giving some hint of content. However, it omits return format, possible empty results, or any limits, so it is minimally complete but not rich.

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 100%, as the parameter 'id' is described as 'ID data sektoral yang ingin dilihat detailnya'. The description adds no new semantic insight beyond what the schema already provides, but it is consistent. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Mendapatkan' (get) and identifies the resource as 'detail lengkap dari sebuah data sektoral' (complete details of a sectoral data), with the scope limited 'berdasarkan ID' (based on ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_data_sektoral or search_data, which presumably list or search rather than fetch detail by ID.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the full detail of a sectoral data record given its ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use get_data_sektoral to list all records first). The guidance is implied rather than direct.

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