get_query_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it 'gets' documentation, implying a safe read, but it does not specify that no state is modified, what the response contains, or any potential edge cases. The lack of annotation support leaves behavioral transparency incomplete.

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 extremely concise, with a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a brief Args line. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return format), the description is still incomplete. It omits practical context such as how to discover valid query_type values, whether the lookup is case-sensitive, or any prerequisite steps. The absence of references to sibling listing tools further reduces 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?

The schema provides zero description coverage for the only parameter. The description adds only 'The query type name', which is a minimal clarification that largely restates the parameter's name. It does not provide examples, allowed values, or a pointer to where valid names can be found (e.g., list_available_query), so it insufficiently compensates for the schema gap.

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 action ('Get detailed documentation') and its specific resource ('a specific clearskies query builder type'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_available_query which lists all types, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that users should refer to list_available_query to find available query types, nor does it exclude any scenarios. There is no explicit context or exclusion.

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