Raw Redfish GET

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by explaining that query options are applied conditionally and detailing the return object (resource, resolved URI, applied query options), which goes beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences plus an example, with no wasted words. It front-loads the most important information ('Escape hatch') and efficiently covers purpose, behavior, return value, and usage.

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 description covers the tool's role, behavior, return value, and an example. It does not discuss error handling or pagination, but the output schema exists and the tool is positioned as a simple raw GET, so this is adequate for the complexity.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter, including the 'Ignored if service does not support' behavior. The description's example adds a concrete usage snippet but does not significantly expand on the schema's semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Escape hatch: use when no typed tool fits,' which clearly identifies the tool as a fallback for unhandled cases. 'Fetch any Redfish URI directly' states the specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from the typed getters like get_system and get_chassis.

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 phrase 'use when no typed tool fits' explicitly states the condition for using this tool and implies that typed tools are preferred alternatives. The example demonstrates invocation, and the note about applying query options only when supported adds practical guidance.

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