get_rdsh_farm

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'detailed information' implies a richer response than a list, but the description does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or any side effects. It is minimally adequate for a simple read tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the action and target, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with one required parameter and an output schema already defining the return value. The description plus parameter guidance covers the essential invocation path. It could be slightly more explicit about when to use list_rdsh_farms first, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by telling the agent the farm_id should be obtained from list_rdsh_farms, which is useful provenance for correctly invoking the tool.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('RDS farm'), and the singular scope ('a specific'), which distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the singular 'specific' contrasts with list operations.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need detailed information about one RDS farm, and obtain its ID via list_rdsh_farms. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead, so the agent must infer the context.

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