warehouse_get_definition

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 valuable behavioral context: the operation is long-running and it writes files to the provided output directory, which is not visible in the annotations or schema. It does not discuss overwrite behavior or permissions, but given the annotations, 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 two short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose, the long-running nature, and the file-writing side effect are all front-loaded and each 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?

Given three simple required parameters, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the important non-obvious behavior: long-running execution and file output. It could mention whether the operation is asynchronous or how to handle existing files, but those are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond referencing the output directory, which matches the existing schema description. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action: get the definition of a warehouse, and adds the key behavior that it writes definition files to an output directory. This distinguishes it from metadata retrieval tools like warehouse_get or warehouse_get_sql_endpoint. The 'long-running' qualifier further sharpens expectations.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a warehouse definition exported as files to a directory, and it warns that the operation is long-running. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as warehouse_get or warehouse_update_definition, nor state when not to use it. The guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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