get-resource-docs

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only nature, absence of side effects, or any prerequisites. The description is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simplicity, the description adequately covers the main purpose and required parameters. The optional 'version' parameter is omitted from the description but is present in the schema, which is acceptable. No output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description names three parameters (namespace, provider name, resource name) but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema descriptions. The optional 'version' parameter is not mentioned in the description.

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 specifies the action ('Get detailed documentation') and the resource ('specific OpenTofu resource'), and identifies the three key identifiers (provider namespace, provider name, resource name). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get-datasource-docs, which target different entity types.

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 usage for fetching resource docs but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., get-datasource-docs) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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