diadoc_get_raw

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces this by restricting to safe verbs and explicitly naming the API target. It also adds meaningful behavioral details: host override semantics, JSON body usage, return envelope shape, and error envelope mention. No contradiction with annotations.

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 opens with the core purpose, includes a key reference link, then lists each argument with minimal but sufficient detail. It also names sibling tools where relevant. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 raw 'get-by-path' tool with multiple optional parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the operation's scope, argument semantics, constraints, and return shape. The inclusion of the return envelope and error envelope makes it self-sufficient even without an explicit output schema in the prompt.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of documenting parameters. It explains the path format, the method default and allowed verbs, host override behavior, query-string parameters, and the rare use of body. This is exactly what an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 action ('Read ANY endpoint by path') and the resource (endpoint path), and explicitly distinguishes itself from write/delete siblings. It also signals broad scope ('including ones missing from the catalog'), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Read ANY endpoint by path'), restricts usage to safe verbs, and explicitly names the alternatives for mutations (diadoc_write_raw, diadoc_delete_raw). This gives an agent clear routing guidance without requiring separate tool discovery.

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