clm_describe_operation

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that it returns resolved schemas, varies by POST vs GET, and includes response shape. It does not contradict the 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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the purpose and explains the output without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, much of the context is present: purpose, output contents, and POST/GET distinction. However, the absence of any guidance on the `operation` value format leaves a real gap in the overall description, even considering the schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the `operation` parameter, but it only says 'one operation' and never states whether to pass an operation ID, name, or path, nor where to obtain it (e.g., from clm_list_operations). An agent cannot reliably know what string to provide.

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 clear verb and object, 'Describe one operation', and immediately specifies what is returned: resolved JSON Schema request body/query parameters and response shape. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list/action tools by centering on introspection for a single 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?

The phrase 'everything needed to build valid `clm_invoke` params' provides clear context for when to use this tool: before invoking an operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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