cpu_get_lot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Public read', disclosing it's safe and requires no authentication. It also outlines the exact data returned, giving transparency into behavior beyond basic semantics.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently lists the returned fields. No wasted words.

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-with-ID tool, the description is complete: it states the action, the access level (public read), and the full set of returned attributes without relying on an output schema. It covers the essential context needed to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with the single parameter lotId described as 'The lot id to inspect.' The description's 'by id' mirrors this and adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Inspect' and resource 'single lot by id', clearly distinguishing from sibling listing tools like cpu_list_lots and cpu_list_my_lots. It also enumerates the fields returned, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

States this inspects a single lot by id, implying it's for when you have a specific lotId and need details. Doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by id' wording vs list siblings provides clear context. 'Public read' also clarifies accessibility.

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