Get resource reference

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain what 'embedded resource content block' means, whether there are side effects, or what failure modes exist.

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 concise sentence with no filler and starts with the action, making it easy to parse. It loses a point only because the phrasing 'for a dynamic resource' is vague and not defined.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, this single-sentence description is not enough for an agent to call the tool confidently. The agent would still need to guess how kind and resource_id map to the returned resource block and what output format to expect.

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%, and the description never mentions kind or resource_id. The agent receives no explanation of how these parameters affect the returned content block, so it cannot infer meaningful values beyond the schema defaults and enum.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and an object ('embedded resource content block for a dynamic resource'), so the agent has a basic idea of what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_resource_links or other resource-related siblings.

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 guidance is given about when to call this tool instead of alternatives. It neither states a recommended use case nor mentions any exclusions, and the sibling list is not leveraged to clarify selection.

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