BuildBetter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it's an alias for fetching static resources, lacking details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'static' entails (e.g., read-only, immutable). This is inadequate for a tool with potential behavioral implications.

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 front-loads key information (alias and purpose) with zero waste. It appropriately sized for a simple tool, making every word count without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'static resource' is, how it differs from dynamic resources, or what the fetch operation returns, leaving gaps in understanding for the agent.

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 input schema fully documents the 'uri' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the URI must be from 'ListResources', which is already hinted in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 tool's purpose as fetching a static resource by URI, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from its sibling 'open-resource' beyond calling itself an alias, missing an opportunity to clarify any functional differences or scope variations.

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 implies usage by referencing 'open-resource' as an alias, suggesting it should be used similarly, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over 'open-resource' or other alternatives like 'list-types'. This leaves the agent to infer context without clear exclusions or recommendations.

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