get_magic_transit_gre_tunnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavior. 'Get details' communicates a read-only lookup with no side effects, but it does not disclose authentication needs, response shape, or any additional behavioral nuances. For a simple GET this is acceptable but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the resource immediately and nothing else is extraneous.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with two fully documented required parameters, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, it leaves 'details' undefined and does not help the agent know what the response will contain or how to handle related alternatives.

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%, and both required parameters already have clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying the tunnel_id identifies the specific GRE tunnel.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('a specific Magic Transit GRE tunnel'), clearly distinguishing it from list-oriented and IPsec/route/site siblings in the sibling list. The word 'specific' also differentiates it from list_magic_transit_gre_tunnels.

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?

Use for a single known GRE tunnel is implied by 'specific', and the required tunnel_id supports this. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no pointer to list_magic_transit_gre_tunnels for enumeration, and no mention of prerequisites like account context.

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