get_file_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on return format, error handling, or operational context. It's minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool but doesn't fully address the gaps left by missing structured data.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'file_system_id' with its purpose ('OCID of the file system to retrieve'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this effectively compensates, though it could specify OCID format or constraints.

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 detailed information') and resource ('a specific File Storage file system'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_file_systems' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage when detailed information about a specific file system is needed, contrasting with 'list_file_systems' for listing. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or mention alternatives for similar retrieval operations among other get_* tools.

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