describe_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information,' which is minimal and does not clarify read-only nature, error behavior, or what fields are included in 'detailed information.' No side effects or permissions are mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant details. It efficiently conveys the core action and target.

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?

The tool is simple with one clear parameter, and an output schema exists to define return values. The description specifies the target ('resource model') and the action ('Get') sufficiently for basic use, though it lacks usage context and edge-case details. Overall, it is mostly complete for a straightforward describe operation.

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 100% (the single `name` parameter is documented), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the context 'Lifecycle Manager' to the parameter's meaning, but the schema already describes it as the resource model name, so the added value is marginal.

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 the verb ('Get') and the object ('detailed information about a Lifecycle Manager resource model'). It distinguishes from sibling describe tools by specifying 'resource model' as the target, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with related tools like get_resources.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_session or describe_instance. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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