Describe Kilango Operation

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining what specific information is returned (If-Match requirement, write status) that an agent would need to know before invoking an operation. Notable that no output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, which it does reasonably well.

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?

Single dense sentence that enumerates all return fields and adds the usage directive. Zero wasted words, highly efficient front-loading of purpose.

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?

For a metadata-lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and use context. It could arguably mention how the operationId is obtained (e.g., from kilango_search_operations) or what 'write' means for the caller, but given the tool's simple nature, the current description is largely sufficient. The sequential relationship with call_operation is the most important contextual fact and it's present.

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?

There is only 1 parameter (operationId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description references 'a given operationId' which clarifies the parameter's purpose as an identifier for a specific operation, but doesn't elaborate on its format or source (e.g., how an agent obtains a valid operationId, perhaps via kilango_search_operations). Still, for a single self-evident string parameter, the description provides adequate context.

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 it returns specific metadata (method, path, params, If-Match requirement, write status) for a given operationId. It uses a specific verb ('Return') with a distinct resource (operation metadata), and differentiates itself from the sibling kilango_call_operation by explicitly saying 'Use before kilango_call_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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Use before kilango_call_operation'), establishing a clear sequential workflow. It positions this as a prerequisite/discovery tool that should precede the execution tool, which is excellent guidance for agent routing.

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