BuildBetter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches static resources but doesn't describe what 'fetch' entails (e.g., returns content, metadata, or both), potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external resources.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that fetches resources. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., file content, structured data), how errors are handled, or any dependencies on other tools like 'ListResources'. This leaves the agent with incomplete operational context.

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%, with the single parameter 'uri' well-documented in the schema as requiring a match to ListResources. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource type ('static resource'), and specifies the source of valid URIs ('returned from ListResources'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'read-resource', which appears to serve a similar function, preventing a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning that URIs must come from 'ListResources', but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-resource' or other query-related siblings. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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