ds_get_resource_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses implementation details (recursive search via /resources/list, bug avoidance) which adds context, but does not state side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a brief implementation note and structured Args. No filler or redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and implementation, but lacks explicit return structure details beyond 'id and metadata' and does not mention error cases. It is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It provides meaningful examples for 'full_name' ('public/test.py' or 'scripts') and clarifies 'resource_type' has a default of FILE, but it does not enumerate allowed values or further specify the resource_type semantics.

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 ('Find') and resource ('resource by full path'), with the outcome ('returning id and metadata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ds_list_resources (which lists all) and ds_view_resource (which likely views content).

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 purpose and parameter examples imply when to use this tool (when you have a full path and need id/metadata), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The implementation note about avoiding a bug is technical, not usage guidance.

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