os_get_os_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says the tool 'gets' and 'returns' details, implying a read-only lookup, but it does not disclose error behavior when no match exists, case sensitivity, required permissions, or rate limiting. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is an important gap.

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 concise and well-structured: a single main sentence followed by labeled Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to spell out the return shape. Given the simple one-parameter lookup, the description is mostly adequate, but it still omits usage guidance and failure behavior. It is at the minimum viable level of completeness.

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?

With the schema providing only a plain string type and 0% schema description coverage, the description gives the key meaning: 'name: Exact OS name to find.' This signals exactness and clarifies the role of the parameter. It lacks examples or valid value constraints, but is sufficient for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 that the tool retrieves an operating system using an exact name match, which is a specific verb plus resource. The phrase 'exact name match' helps distinguish it from search-style siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from os_get_operating_system, which could be a lookup by ID. This is clear but not fully sibling-distinguishing.

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 the tool should be used when the caller knows an exact OS name, since it says 'exact name match.' However, it never mentions the more general os_search_os_by_name, os_list_operating_systems, or os_get_operating_system alternatives, nor does it state when use should be avoided. The usage context is implied, not explicit.

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