aem_bundle_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' conveys a read-only intent, and 'from AEM instances' indicates the data source. However, it does not describe response behavior, how failures surface, or whether both bundleId and symbolicName are supported per call.

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 one sentence and the key action is front-loaded. There is no filler or repeated schema information. It could include a bit more operational context, but as a concise summary it is effective.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters, two ways to identify a bundle, and two ways to target AEM instances, yet the description only says 'Get detailed information about OSGi bundles from AEM instances'. It does not state that a bundle identifier is expected, how instances vs aliases are resolved, or what the returned details include. With no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficiently complete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters relate, such as whether bundleId and symbolicName are alternatives or whether aliases and instances target the same concept. This is adequate but not value-adding beyond the schema.

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 a clear verb and resource: obtaining detailed information about OSGi bundles from AEM instances. It is distinguishable from sibling actions like aem_bundle_start or aem_bundle_stop, and the word 'details' separates it from aem_bundle_list. It could be more specific about identifying a single bundle, but the core purpose is clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a bundleId or symbolicName, nor any statement that this tool is for inspecting a single bundle rather than listing all bundles. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and generic wording.

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