Cm Api Get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: the tool is strictly read-only, which prevents the agent from attempting mutations through it. It leaves out error behavior, auth/permission requirements, and pagination limits on large collections — relevant for an arbitrary-endpoint proxy.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only constraint and the escape-hatch framing, with inline examples instead of prose. Nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the two parameters are both covered. For a generic proxy tool the remaining gap is guidance on invalid paths, pagination, and whether the read-only claim is enforced server-side; also note the description is in Portuguese while the sibling names are English.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining that path is relative to the version (with an example) and that params_json is a JSON-encoded object of query parameters (with an example). It does not state the expected string format edge cases, e.g. whether a leading slash is tolerated or how malformed JSON is handled.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("faz um GET em qualquer endpoint da API do CM") plus the scoping rule that the path is relative to the API version, with a worked example path. The framing as a read-only "escape hatch" makes it distinguishable from the enumerated, purpose-built siblings such as list_clusters or get_service.

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?

"Escape hatch SOMENTE LEITURA" conveys the selection rule: use this only as a fallback for endpoints that no dedicated tool covers, and only for reads. It does not explicitly name any sibling as the preferred alternative, so the agent must infer that dedicated tools win.

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