Get resource details

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value on top: the differential behavior between known and unknown resource types and the redaction of secrets ('Secrets are redacted'). Neither fact is derivable from the schema or annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and mechanism first, type-dependent behavior second, redaction caveat last. No filler, no repetition of schema field names, and the most important operational fact (fetch by type and OCID) is front-loaded.

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 moderately simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return-value expectations ('full attributes' vs 'identifier') and the redaction caveat, so an agent knows what to expect. Minor gaps remain — what exactly the fallback identifier is for unknown types, and whether compartmentId is required for scoping — but the essentials for a safe, correct call are present.

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 schema documents ocid, resourceType, and compartmentId adequately and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavioral context for resourceType (known types return full attributes, others return the identifier), but does not elaborate on how compartmentId affects scoping. It does not compensate beyond what the schema covers.

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 opens with a specific verb+object ('Fetch detailed attributes for a resource by type and OCID'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_*, search_*, and generate_* tools. A near-exact match on one resource, not a collection, so an agent can tell it apart without opening sibling schemas.

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 type-dependent behavior note ('Known types... return full attributes; others return the identifier') subtly signals when results will be rich vs. minimal, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for get_resource over search_resources or list_compartment_resources. The read-one-vs-list distinction is only implied by sibling names, not stated.

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