get_minifig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation (get complete details) and implies no destructive behavior. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens when both parameters are provided. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or repetition. It is highly efficient for an agent to process.

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 tool has no output schema, the description could specify what fields are included in 'complete details' beyond 'every set it appears in'. The tool is simple but the lack of output format hints may leave the agent uncertain. Still, basic context is provided.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by noting that 'name' is for fuzzy search if 'fig_num' is not provided, and 'fig_num' is the exact identifier. This clarifies the relationship between parameters and their usage beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves complete details for a specific minifigure including its sets. The verb 'Get' and resource 'complete details for a specific LEGO minifigure' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_minifigs, the usage context implies it's for a lookup of a known minifig, not general search.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you know a minifig name or fig number and want to find which sets include it.' This provides a clear when-to-use condition. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like search_minifigs, which would strengthen guidance.

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