nifi_get_controller_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. On top of that the description adds genuinely new context: the backing endpoint (GET /controller-services/{id}) and that sensitive values are masked in the response — a useful caveat an agent would not get from 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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the payload description before the implementation detail. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description does sketch the returned content and the masking behavior. However, with 0% parameter schema coverage, the undefined meaning of service_id and verbose is a real completeness gap for a lookup 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 description coverage is 0%, so both parameters (service_id, verbose) are undocumented anywhere. The description never explains that service_id identifies the service or what verbose toggles, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of the verbose flag.

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+resource and scopes it as a single item ('One controller service'), with a clear inventory of what it returns (properties, state, references). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool nifi_list_controller_services, but never names it explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The word 'One' hints at single-record retrieval versus listing, but the agent must infer this. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over nifi_list_controller_services or nifi_get_processor.

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