Get a drop

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses useful behavioral details: the tool is id-only (rejects URL/slug), returns a specific set of fields, and explicitly does not return content bytes. This adds meaningful context about what the tool actually does and its boundaries, enhancing trust and correct usage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage context, return fields, id-only constraint, and sibling differentiation. There is no wasted fluff.

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 the simple single-parameter tool, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, how to get the id, and what it does not cover. The presence of an output schema complements the return-field list, making the tool fully understood without missing pieces.

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 input schema already fully describes drop_id (including the id-only restriction and the dropthis_resolve pointer) with 100% coverage. The description repeats this information but adds no new parameter-level semantics, so it continues to rely on the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Read back an EXISTING drop's settings and metadata'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming dropthis_get_content (served content) and dropthis_resolve (URL/slug to id conversion), leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it positions the tool within a read-modify-write cycle ('read current settings here, change them, then write with dropthis_update_settings'), instructs to use dropthis_resolve for public URLs/slugs, and directs to dropthis_get_content for served bytes. This fully orients the agent among alternatives.

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