Get Manufacturing Resource

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the JSON:API context but does not elaborate on error handling or response details beyond what annotations provide.

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 with three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence serves a purpose without extraneous text.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with a full output schema, the description covers key usage points. It could mention error behavior (e.g., resource not found) but is largely complete.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, and the description adds value by explaining the use of 'include' and suggesting 'get_schema' for valid resource types, complementing the schema.

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 action ('Get a specific resource by its ID') and context ('from a JSON:API service'). However, it does not explicitly mention that this is for manufacturing resources, which could cause confusion with the sibling tool 'get_resource'.

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 provides useful guidance on using the 'include' parameter and recommends calling 'get_schema' first. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_resource' or 'list_manufacturing_resources'.

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