get_rdd_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Plain text output of RDD file') and its content, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error or failure behavior. Still, 'Retrieve' and the return description imply a safe lookup.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and cleanly structured with Args and Returns sections. No sentence is wasted or redundant.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, input semantics, and return content. It lacks explicit read-only or error-behavior notes, which would be more important without annotations, but the provided output schema and straightforward nature reduce the gap.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining that 'id' is the model_id of the EnergyPlus model and telling the agent to obtain it from get_available_models. This is sufficient and valuable for the single parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Retrieve a specific RDD file...'), the resource type ('RDD file from an EnergyPlus model'), and the required identifier. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_error_file or list_objects_by_type.

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 gives clear context: it is useful in debugging, and it tells the agent where to get the required id (get_available_models). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool.

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