os_get_operating_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' and 'Returns' imply a read-only operation, which is reasonably transparent for a simple getter. But it does not explicitly state non-mutation, authorization needs, error behavior, or what 'details' includes beyond the output schema.

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 short, organized with Args/Returns, and front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Returns: Operating system details' line is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but the overall structure is efficient and 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 with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on where os_id comes from and how to choose this tool over os_get_os_by_name or os_list_operating_systems. The output schema covers return shape, so that omission is acceptable.

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 input schema provides only a string type with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates minimally by labeling os_id as 'The operating system ID,' which adds semantic meaning. It does not provide format, examples, or how to obtain a valid ID, so the compensation is partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific operating system.' It is clear this is a read operation by ID, and the name 'os_get_operating_system' aligns with that purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like os_get_os_by_name or os_search_os_by_name, so it falls just short of full clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large set of OS-related siblings (os_list_operating_systems, os_get_os_by_name, os_search_os_by_name, etc.), an agent is left to infer that this tool is appropriate when an os_id is already known.

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