get_operation

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only operation ("Get") and public access ("public explorer operation"), but does not state potential error behaviors, whether the operation is actually invoked, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure beyond the tool's name and purpose.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant 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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks contextual guidance such as how to obtain operation_id or when to prefer this over siblings. The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap, but the overall context is only moderately complete for an agent.

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 provides zero description for the operation_id parameter (0% coverage), and the description does not elaborate on what operation_id should contain or how to obtain it. It only indirectly suggests it identifies an operation, leaving the agent without enough semantic detail to correctly supply the parameter.

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 tool's function: retrieving parameters and response schemas for a specific operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_operations (listing all) and invoke_operation (executing), as it focuses on metadata retrieval for a single operation.

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 this tool (when you need schema details for a single operation) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance on choosing this tool over list_operations or invoke_operation.

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