get_datacenter

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral transparency beyond that. It does not mention any additional side effects, return format, or depth behavior beyond what the schema's 'depth' field describes. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value either.

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, tightly worded sentence that states the purpose without fluff. All words contribute value. Length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 read operation with a readOnlyHint annotation and fully documented parameters, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It does not specify what 'details' includes, but the tool name and schema (datacenter_id, depth) provide enough context for an agent. Slight gap: no mention of the depth parameter's effect on output, though the schema description does cover it.

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 description coverage is 100% (both 'datacenter_id' and 'depth' are described). The description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it only rephrases 'specific' which aligns with the ID parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter 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 states a clear verb (Get) and resource ('details of a specific virtual data center'). The word 'specific' implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling list_datacenters, though it does not name the alternative explicitly. Strong purpose clarity, but not maximally differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when you have a specific datacenter ID (via 'specific'), but does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or contrast with list_datacenters. The context is reasonable for a get_* tool, but exclusions or selection criteria are absent.

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