Get token

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns full token detail and consumers, and indicates exact-name matching. However, it does not explain error behavior, permissions, or other potential side effects, which would be useful for a get operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with a purpose question followed by a direct statement. It earns its place without being wordy, though the question could be integrated into a single declarative sentence.

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 its simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential information: what is returned, the exact-name constraint, and the resource focus. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it does not mention edge-case behavior.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'by exact name' adds context that the 'name' parameter is an exact match identifier, but it omits details like case sensitivity or token format. This is partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 returns full token detail plus consuming components by exact name. This specific verb and resource scope distinguish it from siblings like list_tokens (which lists tokens) and list_components.

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 phrase 'by exact name' implies the tool is intended for when the exact token name is known, not for searching. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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