Get one manager resource

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the auto-selection of the first manager when omitted, and the exact response structure (resolved 'uri' and full 'resource' payload). This enriches transparency without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences: the first states the core action, the second explains return value, and the third gives an example. No filler, front-loaded with the essential verb+resource, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return fields, but it still does so concisely. It covers selection modes, fallback behavior, and an example, making it complete for a simple read-only fetch tool in the context of its sibling tools.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by clarifying the relationship between uri and manager_id, the fallback behavior when both are omitted, and providing a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions and helps the agent construct correct calls.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one Manager (BMC/iDRAC/iLO/XCC) by URI or ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_managers or redfish_get. It also states the auto-selection fallback and the return shape, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: fetching a single manager by URI or ID, with auto-selection if omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, although the unique behavior of auto-selection and direct resource fetch implicitly guides usage.

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