cigchat_openai_embeddings_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the auth requirement (Manage Team scope) and, through the GET method, implies read-only behavior. However, it does not describe what 'info' includes, error behavior, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences: one for the action/endpoint and one for the authentication requirement. Every word contributes useful information, and the key action is front-loaded. No fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter get-info tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and auth constraint, which is adequate for invocation. However, it fails to explain what 'embedding info' returns or what the agent should expect in the response, which would be valuable given no output schema exists. It does not mention alternative retrieval methods or the significance of the ID.

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 coverage is 100% (id is described as 'Id' with integer type). The description adds no new meaning beyond the endpoint path showing {id}, which reiterates the parameter but doesn't clarify what the ID refers to or any constraints beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and the description neither improves nor worsens it.

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 'Get embedding info' with a specific HTTP endpoint, clearly identifying it as a read operation for a single embedding resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling openai_embeddings_* tools, the name and endpoint make its role obvious among create/delete/update/generate/import siblings.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires the Manage Team scope on the token') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving details about a specific embedding ID or contrast it with list/create/update operations, so the agent has to infer usage from the endpoint.

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