protect_get_relay

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it lists returned fields, notes that additional device-specific fields are not verified due to lack of instance on reference console, and advises inspecting a live response before relying on them. No contradiction observed.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Key information is front-loaded: action, resource, returned fields, and important caveat.

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 (one required parameter, read-only operation, and an output schema via context), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a critical caveat about unverified fields. No gaps for a standard get-by-id tool.

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 single parameter 'id' has a description in the schema ('Relay ID'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add further semantics about the parameter beyond listing returned fields for context. Baseline is 3 given high schema coverage.

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 fetches full details for a specific relay by ID, listing returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like protect_list_relays and other get_* tools by specifying the resource type (relay) and the universal identity fields returned.

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 implicitly says to use this tool when you need details for a specific relay by ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing all relays, use protect_list_relays). The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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