get_operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'cached' usefully signals that results may be stale or locally sourced, but nothing is said about missing operations, required permissions, refresh behavior, or return shape for a 5-parameter read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and both addressing modes are presented immediately.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 80% undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much unspecified. An agent still lacks the meaning of 'service', the response format, and error behavior when the operation is absent from the cache.

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 only 20% (just 'workspace'), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the operationId-vs-(method,path) alternative and establishes that these are alternate lookup keys rather than co-required, which is genuinely additive, but it says nothing about 'service' or how the two keys interact if both are supplied.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), a bounded resource ('one cached operation'), and the two lookup keys available. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_operations, which implies a many-result lookup, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 hints at two valid invocation modes (by operationId, or by method and path) but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over search_operations, get_schema, or generate_request_example, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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