redm-get-native-details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'detailed information' (return format, depth), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions for invalid native names. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only lookup tool with full schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource type but doesn't describe the return format or what 'detailed information' includes. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more context about the response structure would be beneficial.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (nativeName and namespace). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra value like explaining namespace relationships or native name formats.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific native function'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'redm-search-natives' or 'redm-list-native-namespaces', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to natives (search-natives, list-native-namespaces, browse-namespace), there's no indication of when this detailed lookup is preferred over broader search or listing operations.

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