Get Cube

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not indicate which fields constitute "details," whether a missing id errors, or any auth/space-scoping behavior.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero padding. It is efficient, though too terse to carry any structural aids like scope or return hints.

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 simple read-by-id tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description could have said what "details" comprises, leaving a modest gap for an agent deciding whether this call returns enough information.

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 100%, so both cubeId and the optional spaceId fallback are already documented in the schema. The phrase "by id" merely echoes the required cubeId parameter and adds no new meaning about format or the space default resolution.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get details for a single Cube by id"), making the operation immediately identifiable. It does not differentiate against nearby siblings such as list_cubes or get_cube_ssh, which is the only thing separating it from 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent should call this when it already has a cube id and wants the record for one cube. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer list_cubes for discovery or get_cube_ssh for shell access, and no prerequisites are named.

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