bare_metal_get_bare_metal_plan

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 only says 'Get details' and 'Returns: Bare metal plan details', which is minimal. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects.

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 very short and front-loaded with its purpose, with no unnecessary words. However, it is too terse to be genuinely helpful, sacrificing essential detail for brevity.

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 getter with an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'details' includes, how to find the plan_id, or why to choose this over the many related plan tools. Given the rich sibling context, more guidance is expected.

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?

The description repeats 'plan_id: The plan ID' which adds nothing beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the format, source, or constraints of the plan ID, but it does not.

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 tool retrieves details of a specific bare metal plan, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar tools like plan_get_plan or bare_metal_list_bare_metal_plans, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 listing or searching plans. It does not mention alternatives or any prerequisites, such as how to obtain the plan_id.

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