tc_api_get

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds important behavioral details: pagination is fetched fully 'up to a safety cap', project_id routes to a specific region, and omitting it defaults to the master server. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sections: purpose, usage guidance, arg explanations, and return behavior. Every sentence provides unique value, with no fluff or repetition.

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's complexity as an advanced API escape hatch with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: path construction, optional routing, params, return format, and pagination behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: path with format examples and restriction ('Must not include a scheme/host'), project_id with routing behavior, and params as a 'flat string dict'. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'perform a raw GET on the Trimble Connect Core API (v2) and return the raw JSON', providing a specific verb, resource, and result. It effectively distinguishes itself from dedicated sibling tools by labeling itself an 'escape hatch' and providing example endpoints.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use when no dedicated tool covers an endpoint' with concrete examples, and 'Read-only — for writes use the dedicated tools, or tc_api_write.' This clearly states when to use and explicitly names the alternative write tool.

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