get_tunnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds nothing beyond what the tool's name already implies: no mention of read-only semantics, what kinds of details are returned, whether tunnel configuration or connection state is included, or any prerequisite (e.g., tunnel must exist).

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 zero filler. It is efficiently written, though arguably so terse that it barely adds value beyond the tool's name.

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 tool with two fully documented required parameters, the definition is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, the term 'details' is ambiguous — it could mean tunnel status, configuration, or connection info — and the description does not resolve that ambiguity.

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 tunnel_id and account_id have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Cloudflare Tunnel'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_tunnel_configuration or list_tunnel_connections, so an agent may not know which tunnel-related tool to pick.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes list_tunnels, get_tunnel_configuration, and list_tunnel_connections, but the description gives no hint about which scenario calls for 'details' vs. those other operations.

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