Get resource details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral details: known types return full attributes while others return only the identifier, and secrets are redacted. These are valuable beyond the structured data, though return format details or error handling remain unstated.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and inputs. Every clause adds information 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior (full attributes vs. identifier, redaction). Annotations cover safety. However, it does not mention the optional compartmentId parameter or any scoping behavior, leaving a minor gap for a 3-parameter 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that resourceType accepts known types (Vcn, Subnet, Instance) and that other types are valid but return only the identifier, which is useful semantic context beyond the schema's example enumeration.

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 a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (detailed attributes for a resource), and names the inputs (type and OCID). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by implying it retrieves one resource rather than listing or searching many, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by type and OCID' — the agent can infer this is a lookup for a known resource. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_resources or list_compartment_resources, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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