get_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses performance characteristics (speed trade-off with include_content) and return structure (details and optionally contained items), which is valuable. However, it lacks information on permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, which are important for a retrieval tool. The description doesn't contradict any 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage and performance notes, and ends with return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and parameters. It addresses performance considerations and distinguishes from some siblings. However, it could improve by mentioning permissions or error handling, which are relevant for completeness in a retrieval context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'include_content' (for optional content listing and performance implications) and implies 'container_id' is for identifying the container. However, it doesn't detail the format or constraints of 'container_id' (which accepts integer or string), leaving some ambiguity. Since there are only 2 parameters and the description adds meaningful context for one, it scores above baseline.

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 container information with optional content listing, specifying the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'container information'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_container_contents_only' and 'get_container_summary' by mentioning both properties and content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 clear context for usage: 'Examine container properties and optionally see what's inside' and performance guidance: 'Set include_content=False for faster queries on large containers'. It implicitly distinguishes from 'get_container_contents_only' by offering optional content. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, preventing a score of 5.

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