get_cloud_resource_details

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 it 'Get detailed information,' implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, depth). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 cloud resources and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential return formats, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output guidance, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (provider, resource_type, resource_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters interact or examples of valid inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific cloud resource'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cloud_resource_facets' or 'get_cloud_resource_facet_value', which might also retrieve cloud resource information, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to fetch resource_type from other tools like 'get_cloud_resource_facet_values' or 'list_cloud_resources' as hinted in the schema, nor does it specify use cases or exclusions.

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