Get shard

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context; it does state a single read operation and references official docs for sharding concepts. It does not disclose not-found behavior, return format, or access requirements, but for a simple read operation this is minimally adequate.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence plus a relevant documentation link; no filler or redundancy. It earns its place and is easy to scan.

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 one-parameter getter, the essentials (verb, resource, lookup field) are present, and the docs link supplies background. However, without an output schema it does not state what is returned or error behavior, leaving a minor gap.

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 for the single parameter is 0%, and the description only repeats the word 'id' ('by id') without adding format, source, or semantics beyond the schema. The lone 'id' parameter is self-descriptive, but the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('shard'), and lookup method ('by id'). It is clear and distinguishes from shard_list by using 'single' and from shardgroup_get by naming the shard resource, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 'by id' phrasing implies use when the caller already has a shard identifier, with shard_list as the enumeration alternative, but the description offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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