get_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation ('fetch'), indicating it is safe and non-destructive. While it does not elaborate on idempotency or side effects, the behavior is adequately disclosed for a read-only tool. The presence of an output schema covers return format.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes: the first line states the action, the list enumerates valid types, and the final sentence explains when to use it. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's generic nature, low parameter count, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role as an escape hatch, covers the key parameters, and provides usage context. No critical information 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 0%, so the description adds critical value by listing example rtype values ('light', 'room', etc.) and noting that rid is optional. This goes beyond the bare schema, which only defines types. However, it could provide more detail on the rid format or constraints.

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 'fetch a Hue resource by type, optionally by id', using a specific verb and resource. It contrasts with higher-level tools by calling itself a 'generic escape hatch' and lists many resource types, distinguishing it from siblings like list_lights or list_rooms.

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 description implies usage when raw bridge payload is needed ('useful when you need fields the higher-level tools don't expose'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. The context is clear but could be more prescriptive.

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