decoration_info

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what is shown but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, if any side effects occur, or authorization requirements. The name and content imply retrieval, but no explicit behavioral traits are stated.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a list of returned details, and a parametric docstring. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 low complexity (one simple param, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns (Dict with details and file paths). However, it lacks examples or clarification of terms like 'proven settings'.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'name' is a 'Decoration name or slug', which clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's type/title. Additional context like return type also aids understanding.

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 retrieves full details about a saved decoration, listing specific attributes like settings, paths, and tags. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_decorations' (which lists all) and 'save_decoration' (which creates/modifies).

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_decorations' or 'save_decoration'. It implies usage for a specific decoration but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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