get_configsource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the return fields (name, displayName, appliesTo, collectMethod, etc.) and explaining key information like lineageId (built-in vs custom). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear headings (Returns, When to use, Key information, Workflow, Related tools). It is relatively lengthy but each section adds value. Slightly more concise phrasing could improve it, but it is organized and front-loaded with purpose.

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 the tool has 2 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers all necessary context. It explains return fields, usage scenarios, workflow, and related tools. The agent has sufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it provides usage context (e.g., how to obtain configSourceId via list_configsources). Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific ConfigSource by its ID in LogicMonitor (LM) monitoring.' It identifies the verb (get), resource (ConfigSource), and scope (by ID). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_configsources by mentioning its specific 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?

The description provides explicit usage scenarios under 'When to use:', including understanding collected config, reviewing appliesTo logic, checking collection method, and troubleshooting. It also offers a workflow: use list_configsources to find the ID, then this tool. Related tools are listed for alternatives.

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