fabricsGetFabricCandidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and gets straight to the point without 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'candidate configuration' is, what data it returns, or how it relates to other fabric operations. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool use.

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 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where 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 candidate configuration' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (candidate configuration), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fabricsGetFabricCandidates' (plural) or explain what a 'candidate configuration' is in this context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fabricsGetFabricCandidates' (which likely lists multiple candidates) or other fabric-related tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or contextual constraints.

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