balena_get_fleet

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already establish the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations – it does not mention what happens on error (e.g., 404), whether authentication is required, or any side effects (though none are expected). Since the description does not contradict the annotations but also fails to add any useful behavioral information, it scores low.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. The essential information (verb, resource, and parameter purpose) is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it tells the agent what the tool does and what the parameter is. However, it does not describe the return value (the fleet object) or any error behaviors, and it omits guidance on how to discover the fleet ID. Given no output schema exists, the description could reasonably be expected to mention the expected result format. The annotations cover safety, but the overall context feels slightly incomplete for an agent that may need to chain this with other tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the only parameter (fleet_id), and the schema only provides type constraints (integer, maximum, exclusiveMinimum). The description's phrase 'by numeric ID' clarifies that the integer parameter is the fleet's unique identifier, which is essential meaning not present in the schema. This compensates for the low coverage, though it could be more explicit about where to obtain the ID (e.g., from balena_list_fleets).

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('fleet'), and adds the distinguishing qualifier 'by numeric ID,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like balena_list_fleets (which lists fleets) and other getters such as balena_get_device or balena_get_release. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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. It does not mention that balena_list_fleets should be used to fetch all fleets or that this tool is for retrieving a single fleet given a specific ID. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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