routine_get

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 states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions required, error conditions (e.g., what happens if the routine doesn't exist), rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with key distinctions (e.g., 'Get detailed metadata for a single Edge Routine by name') to improve immediate clarity.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., configuration, status, metadata), error handling, or how this differs from sibling tools. For a read operation in a complex environment with many related tools, more contextual information is needed to ensure proper agent selection.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationship to other tools). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a Edge Routine'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'details' includes and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'routine_list' or 'routine_route_list' that might also retrieve routine-related information. The description is functional but lacks specificity about the scope of returned information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'routine_list' (likely listing multiple routines) and 'routine_route_list' (likely listing routes associated with routines), there's no indication of when 'routine_get' is appropriate versus these other tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage information is provided.

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