Get Resource Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation is a fetch returning JSON, which implies a read-only GET. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by practical construction guidance. Every 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what the tool does, returns JSON, and explains URL construction. It does not link to the sibling tools for discovering server addresses, but this is not strictly necessary for invoking the tool correctly. The lack of annotation coverage is partially offset by the simple read-only nature of the operation.

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 already fully describes the 'url' parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the exact URL format expected, including the placeholder for server address and the actual path structure. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'The Redfish URL to access the resource.'

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 clear verb and resource: 'fetches and returns its data as JSON' given a Redfish resource URL. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_servers and list_discovered_servers, which enumerate servers rather than fetch arbitrary resource data by URL.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to retrieve data from a specific Redfish resource URL. It explains how to construct a valid URL with the schema 'https://<server address>/redfish/v1/<resource path>'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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