get_infrastructure_target

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get details,' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only/idempotent, whether special permissions are required, or what kind of detail object will be returned. For a tool with zero annotation support, this is thin.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though the brevity leaves out useful disambiguation. This is genuine conciseness, not under-specification to the point of tautology.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description still needs to convey enough context for an agent to know what it will receive and how it fits into the workflow. The phrase 'details of an infrastructure target' is vague, and the relationship to list_infrastructure_targets is never stated. The self-describing parameters help, but overall context is incomplete.

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 100%: both target_id and account_id already have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters relate, which one identifies the target, or why both are required. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('details of an infrastructure target'). It distinguishes from list_infrastructure_targets by implying a single, detailed lookup rather than a collection. However, it does not explicitly say the lookup is keyed by target_id and account_id, and 'infrastructure target' is left jargony.

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 intended use is implied: retrieve details for one target after identifying it. But the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling list_infrastructure_targets, and no prerequisite context such as needing the account_id and target_id from a prior list call.

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