adm_get_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation ('get ID') without mentioning read-only nature, possible errors, response format, or that behavior may vary by object type. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the operation and scope. The parenthetical '(utility)' adds minimal value and could be trimmed, but it does not harm comprehension.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description is still incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., raw ID, object with ID), how the output should be used with sibling tools, or how type/name combinations map to valid objects. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description should have covered these gaps.

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%, with both parameters ('type' and 'name') having short descriptions. The main description merely restates the parameters ('by type and name') without adding new semantics or examples beyond the schema's 'e.g. domain, hosting'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('object ID') scoped by type and name. It is distinguishable from the sibling toolset, which focuses on domains, DNS, and mail operations rather than generic ID lookup. The term 'utility' is slightly vague but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when this utility should be used versus alternatives, nor does it describe a typical workflow such as using the returned ID in other adm_* calls. The description leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and siblings.

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