vro_api_describe

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real value: it discloses that $refs are resolved in the returned body schema and specifies the success-response coverage. It stops short of stating anything about failure modes (e.g., unknown operationId) or how large a resolved schema may be.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The output enumeration comes first and the routing instruction second, which is the right front-loading for a lookup tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names the parameter categories, the resolved body schema, and the success response shape. The only omission is the provenance of operationId, which an agent must infer from the sibling search tool.

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 50%: depth is documented inline ('How deep to inline nested schemas (default 3)') while operationId has no schema description. The description indirectly supports depth by advertising $refs resolution, but never explains where an operationId comes from (presumably vro_api_search), so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Show') plus specific resource ('one Orchestrator API operation in detail'), with an enumeration of exactly what is returned: path/query/header parameters, request body schema with $refs resolved, and success response shape. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling vro_api_search (find operations) and vro_api_call (invoke them) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use before vro_api_call for anything with a body,' naming both the alternative tool and the selecting condition. No explicit when-not is given (e.g., that a bodyless GET needs no describe step), so it falls just short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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