get_vnic

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 this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the VNIC doesn't exist. The return statement adds some value but is incomplete.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It uses three clear sections (purpose, args, returns) with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information in a well-organized format.

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 and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains the parameter well and gives a high-level overview of return data, but doesn't provide complete behavioral context (authentication, errors) or detailed output structure. For a simple retrieval tool, it's adequate 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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains that 'vnic_id' is the 'OCID of the VNIC to retrieve,' adding crucial context about the parameter format and purpose that the schema lacks. For a single parameter tool, this is highly effective.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific VNIC.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('VNIC'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_vnics' or other 'get_' tools. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_vnics' for listing multiple VNICs or other 'get_' tools for different resources. There's no context about prerequisites or when this specific retrieval is appropriate.

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