get_di_inject_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It simply states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only safety, required permissions, or return format. The description adds no context beyond what the tool name already suggests.

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 two-sentence purpose plus a compact Args block. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes only necessary parameter information, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter with examples in the description, and an output schema exists to document returns. It is adequate for correct invocation, though mentioning that valid inject_type names can be listed via list_available_di_inject would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples ('ByClass', 'Utcnow') for inject_type, adding concrete meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain how to discover valid values or provide further constraints.

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 states it 'Get detailed documentation for a specific clearskies DI inject helper,' which clearly identifies the tool's action (get detailed documentation), the resource (DI inject helper), and scope (specific). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_available_di_inject.

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 use for a specific inject type via 'specific' but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions. It lacks direct guidance like 'use list_available_di_inject to see all types' or 'use only when you already know the inject type name.'

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