pulumi-registry-get-resource

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 states the tool retrieves information (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't specify what happens on errors (e.g., if the resource doesn't exist), whether authentication is required, rate limits, or the format of returned information. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get information about'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the target ('a specific resource') and source ('from the Pulumi Registry').

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?

Given the complexity of a resource lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., documentation, properties, examples), error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool that likely interacts with an external registry, more context is needed to guide effective use by an agent.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'provider' as the cloud provider, 'resource' as the resource type). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid inputs or interdependencies between parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get information about') and resource ('a specific resource from the Pulumi Registry'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pulumi-registry-list-resources' by specifying retrieval of a single resource rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of information is retrieved (e.g., documentation, schema, metadata), which prevents a perfect score.

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 description implies usage when needing information about a specific Pulumi resource, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pulumi-registry-list-resources' or the CLI tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and parameters alone.

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