installer_installers__get_installer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what a missing/unknown installerUuid returns, no mention of the local 'fields' projection behavior described only in the schema, and no indication of return shape.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the resource front-loaded, so nothing is buried. There is mild redundancy in restating the tool name and 'Get' twice ('Get installer' / 'Get details'), plus the bracketed placeholder notation adds no information.

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-UUID tool with full annotation coverage, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to call it correctly. It leaves gaps an agent might care about, such as error behavior for invalid UUIDs and what the response contains, which the unusual local 'fields' projection makes slightly more relevant.

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 installerUuid and the optional fields projection are fully documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond restating that an installer is requested.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get installer', 'Get details of the requested [installer]') and the URL path makes the single-resource scope explicit, which distinguishes it from the sibling installer_installers__list_installers. It does not name that sibling or state the contrast directly, keeping it short of 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over installer_installers__list_installers, and no prerequisites mentioned. Usage is only implied by the singular 'requested [installer]' and the required UUID in the schema.

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