fabricsGetFabric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get a specific fabric' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or the response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent to infer details. For a retrieval tool with no output schema, more context on what 'get' returns would be helpful.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (fabricId, candidate, includeMetadata) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get a specific fabric' clearly states the action (get) and resource (fabric), but it's vague about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, fetch metadata) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'fabricsGetAllFabrics' or 'fabricsGetFabricCandidate'. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fabricsGetAllFabrics' (for listing all fabrics) or 'fabricsGetFabricCandidate' (for candidate configurations). The description implies usage for retrieving a single fabric but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings.

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