get_oid

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

Annotations declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which the description does not contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'get details', but given the strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable. It does not mention any edge cases or specific behaviors like error conditions, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 a single, focused sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, though it could add a bit more value without becoming verbose.

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 get operation with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any indication of the return format or typical usage context, which could help an agent confirm it's the right tool. Given the low complexity, this is a slight gap but not critical.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'oid_id' is already documented. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond 'specific OID', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get details about a specific OID'), which is sufficient for basic purpose clarity. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling 'get_oids' (plural), which likely lists OIDs, so the agent might not know which to choose for a particular need without more context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_oids' or other 'get' tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the single parameter.

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