get_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral fact beyond that: the call returns document references/metadata rather than document content, which the agent must fetch separately via read_document. It does not cover error behavior for missing resources, but the annotations lower the bar.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the return-field enumeration comes first and the sibling routing second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the fields returned. Combined with rich annotations and a fully documented two-parameter schema, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both 'project' (project name, omit for default, see list_projects) and 'resource' (id or exact name/alias, case-insensitive) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or lookup guidance for either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one resource's details) and then enumerates exactly what is returned: path, tags, aliases, icon, banner, documents, sidebar facts, and children. It also separates itself from the read_document sibling, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent explicitly: use this to fetch resource metadata, and 'Use read_document to read a document's content.' That names an alternative and the condition selecting it, but it does not say when to prefer this over browse_tree or search for locating a resource.

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