lakehouse_get_shortcut

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation: it does not clarify what 'details' are returned, how shortcutPath and shortcutName combine, or what happens when the shortcut is not found.

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 the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read-only getter.

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 fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the definition is workable. However, with no output schema, the word 'details' leaves return-value expectations vague, and there is no mention of the related list_shortcuts tool to guide selection.

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 fully describes all four required parameters, including an example for shortcutPath, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 names the operation ('Get details') and the resource ('a specific OneLake shortcut in a lakehouse') with enough specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools like lakehouse_list_shortcuts, lakehouse_create_shortcut, and lakehouse_delete_shortcut.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferring this for single-shortcut lookups or when lakehouse_list_shortcuts would be more appropriate, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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