fetch

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Fetch'. However, the description adds minimal context beyond what the annotations provide—just that it's from Yandex Workspace and uses an ID. It doesn't disclose behaviors like not-found handling, permissions, or rate limits, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. There is no unnecessary filler, but it might be too sparse to be fully useful. Nevertheless, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values aren't required in the description. However, the tool's scope is unclear compared to siblings like disk_read and wiki_get_page. There's no explanation of what 'canonical resource' means or how to obtain valid resource IDs, leaving the agent uncertain about when to invoke this tool.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the only parameter 'resource_id'. It doesn't explain what a resource ID looks like, how to find one, or whether it's a UUID, path, or URL. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource as 'a canonical resource by ID', which gives a clear sense of the operation. However, 'canonical resource' is somewhat vague and doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like disk_read or wiki_get_page, which also fetch resources by ID.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. It doesn't mention how 'canonical resource' differs from search results or from disk-specific reads, nor does it provide context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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