get_resource_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: that the result is 'normalized', includes 'sanitized documentation chunks', and returns 'license/attribution'. This clarifies what the agent will receive. It does not mention not-found behavior, but for a simple fetch this is acceptable.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the primary action and object. Every clause adds value: normalized resource, id example, related sanitized chunks, license/attribution, and parameter name. 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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what is fetched, the id format, and additional returned data. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further guidance.

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?

The schema only provides 'id' as a bare string. The description adds crucial semantics with the phrase 'resource id string, e.g. motion:motion-library', giving a concrete example of the expected format. It also explicitly names the parameter, making the relationship between description and schema crystal clear. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('normalized FrontendResource by id') plus additional related content (documentation chunks, license/attribution). It distinguishes itself from sibling search/discovery tools by emphasizing lookup by exact id rather than free-form search.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you have a resource id. It provides an example id format to guide correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state that you should use this instead of search when you have an id, nor does it mention any exclusions. Still, the context is clear and the example anchors the intended usage.

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