lakehouse_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the details returned (SQL endpoint and OneLake paths), but it does not disclose behavior on missing IDs, authentication needs, or response 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and the key content of the result.

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?

For a simple read-only operation with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough detail about the tool's purpose and the kind of data returned. It is slightly incomplete because it does not help an agent choose between this and the more specific lakehouse_get_sql_endpoint sibling.

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 describes both workspaceId and lakehouseId with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond calling it a specific lakehouse.

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 details' and the resource 'a specific lakehouse,' and it names key returned content (SQL endpoint and OneLake paths). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like lakehouse_get_sql_endpoint, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus lakehouse_get_sql_endpoint, lakehouse_get_definition, or other lakehouse retrieval tools. The description implies that it is for full details, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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