get-cpu-type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint as true, so the description's mention of the v1 501 notice adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, the description does not elaborate on what 'details' are returned or any other side effects, but given the annotations cover the read-only and open-world aspects, the additional information is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and immediately follow with version-specific guidance. No redundant words or filler.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, version, and an alternative. It does not describe the return format, but that is not required given no output schema. The information provided is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 covers the only parameter 'cpuTypeId' with a description ('ID of the CPU type to retrieve'), and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: 'Get details for a single CPU flavor type by id.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('CPU flavor type'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list-cpu-types' by noting that this tool is for a single type by ID, while list-cpu-types should be used on the v1 API.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'v2-only' and when to avoid it: 'returns a 501 notice on the v1 API (use list-cpu-types there).' This directly addresses the alternative and usage conditions.

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