openwisp_get_floorplan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The embedded 'HTTP GET' hints at a safe read and the '{pk}/' path shows it targets one record, but nothing covers auth requirements, error behavior for missing IDs, or the shape of the returned details.

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 the resource front-loaded, plus a useful category tag and endpoint path. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too sparse for a tool with no annotations.

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-by-ID tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no statement of what 'details' comprises, it leaves the agent guessing about the response.

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% and the single 'pk' parameter is already documented as 'Floor plan UUID or ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('floor plan details'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list/create/update/delete_floorplan tools. It does not explicitly state the distinction, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus openwisp_list_floorplans or the update/delete variants. The agent must infer that this is the single-record fetch by ID, which is reasonable but not stated.

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