ds_raw_get

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint (path must not include /dolphinscheduler prefix) and implies read-only via GET, but does not mention authentication, error handling, or response format. Given the tool's passthrough nature, this is acceptable 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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with action and includes a critical constraint without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 passthrough tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the HTTP method, and path formatting. It doesn't mention response behavior, but that's largely implicit for a raw GET. It could include a hint about using other tools for specific endpoints, but the sibling list helps.

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?

The single 'path' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description explains the path requirement (must start with /, exclude /dolphinscheduler prefix), adding meaning beyond the schema. It gives the agent the necessary formatting guidance, though no examples.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Pass GET through') and resource ('DolphinScheduler API'), and differentiates from siblings like ds_raw_put/ds_raw_delete by specifying the HTTP method. It also adds a critical path constraint.

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?

Usage context is implied: use for raw GET requests to endpoints not covered by dedicated tools. However, no explicit when/when-not or alternatives are mentioned. The description only states the mechanism, not when it should be chosen over ds_raw_put or other specific tools.

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