Get server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions fetching 'by registry name (latest version)', which implies read-only behavior and version specificity, but doesn't disclose error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'latest version' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a specific example. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, and the second provides crucial usage context. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 has 1 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the parameter semantics and basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits like error cases or return format. For a simple lookup tool, it's functional but could be more complete to fully guide an agent.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'name' is the 'registry name' and provides an example format ('io.github.khalidsaidi/ragmap'), clarifying semantics beyond the schema's basic string type. This adequately covers the single parameter.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('a server record'), specifying it's by 'registry name (latest version)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rag_find_servers (which likely searches) and rag_list_categories (which lists categories), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 you need a specific server by its exact registry name, as shown in the example 'io.github.khalidsaidi/ragmap'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rag_find_servers (e.g., for searching vs. direct lookup) or provide exclusions. The guidance is contextual but not comprehensive.

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