get_remediationsource

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the response includes the Groovy script, which is useful context about the return content, but it does not describe any other behavioral traits or limitations. With annotations carrying the safety expectations, this is adequate but not over-communicative.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and a key detail of the response. It contains no filler or redundancy and reads naturally, earning its place with every word.

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 annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient: it states what is returned (details including the Groovy script) and implies a single resource. It does not mention error cases or exact response structure, which could be useful but is not strictly necessary given the simplicity. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call effectively.

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 already provides a description for source_id ('RemediationSource ID') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description only refers to 'a specific RemediationSource' and adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema conveys. No additional format, source, or constraints are described.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get details about a specific RemediationSource') and highlights a distinctive content element ('including the Groovy script'). This distinguishes it from list (get_remediationsources) and mutation (create/update/delete) siblings, so an agent can tell exactly what it does without needing to inspect schemas.

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 usage for retrieving a single RemediationSource by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_remediationsources or how it relates to export_remediationsource. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than clearly stated.

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