get_load_balancer

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 states this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. It's concise with no wasted words, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more detailed given the lack of output schema.

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 (single parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the parameter semantics and return scope, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors) and doesn't fully guide usage relative to siblings. It's minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents the single parameter 'load_balancer_id' with its purpose ('OCID of the load balancer to retrieve'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score, though not a 5 as it doesn't explain OCID format or sourcing.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific classic load balancer'), distinguishing it from generic 'get' operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_load_balancer' or 'list_load_balancers', which would require a 5.

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 'list_load_balancers' or 'get_network_load_balancer'. It mentions retrieving 'a specific classic load balancer' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing the OCID first from a list operation.

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