get_desktop_pool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the v13 endpoint choice, why older v1 responses lack fields, and that the completeness was verified live with zero gap for update compatibility.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose efficiently. The second paragraph is somewhat detailed about endpoint version history, but it earns its place by justifying the tool's completeness guarantee for update workflows. No significant waste, though it could be tightened.

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 one-parameter get tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers purpose, parameter origin via schema, and why the response is suitable for update round trips. Return value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter's description already tells the agent to obtain pool_id from list_desktop_pools. The tool description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so this is the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed configuration and status of a specific desktop pool.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_desktop_pools, which lists pools rather than retrieving one pool's full configuration.

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?

Provides important context for when to use this tool: it uses the v13 endpoint so the response contains all fields that update_desktop_pool may require, making a get-then-update round trip possible. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_desktop_pools or other get tools, nor does it give formal exclusions.

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