dataverse_get_web_resource

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the published-versus-draft behavior, which is a critical non-obvious trait. It also notes the 5 MB content cap, adding safety and expectation management. No contradictions with 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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity: a clear first sentence, a compact list of returned fields, and a short parameter note. The IMPORTANT caveat is set off in a new paragraph, front-loading the most critical behavioral note. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers return fields, parameter guidance, the published/draft distinction, and the content size cap. The output schema handles return typing, so the description's focus on semantics and caveats makes it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 description adds meaning to include_content beyond the schema: it explains the base64 encoding, potential size for images/script bundles, and the 5 MB cap. The other parameters (URL and GUID) are self-explanatory in the schema, and the description's guidance on when to set include_content covers the one non-trivial parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve a single webresource record by its GUID.' It clearly identifies the resource type and the key identifier, distinguishing it from list operations and the unpublished retrieval tool. The list of returned fields further scopes the operation.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with dataverse_update_web_resource and dataverse_retrieve_unpublished: states that edits are not visible in published retrieval until publish_customizations is called, and points to dataverse_retrieve_unpublished for draft reads. Also advises on the include_content parameter with a size caution, giving clear when-to-use context.

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