get_roll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get details' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what constitutes 'details.' The description is insufficient for a tool that should convey safety and impact.

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 concise: a one-line purpose followed by an efficiently structured args list. Every sentence is justified and adds value. The format is front-loaded and clear.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, output schema present), the description covers parameter semantics well. It explains optionality and defaults. However, it does not explicitly note that cluster_id and roll_id are required (though that is inferable) or describe what the output contains. Overall, it is sufficiently complete with the output schema fill.

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 0% description coverage, but the description's docstring provides clear semantics for each parameter: cluster_id and roll_id with example formats, account_id with default behavior (env var), and cloud with default value and allowed options. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare properties.

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 purpose: 'Get details of a specific Ocean cluster roll (AWS or Azure).' The verb 'Get details' and resource 'specific Ocean cluster roll' are precise and distinguish it from siblings like list_rolls (listing) and initiate_roll (creating).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the requirement of cluster_id and roll_id, but no guidance is given on when to choose this over list_rolls or initiate_roll, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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