get_resource

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, openWorldHint), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: 'in full' (returns the complete resource), 'allow-listed' (scope restriction), and especially the strong statement that Secrets are not retrievable because the capability 'does not exist rather than being merely restricted'. This adds significant context about the tool's guarantees and limitations.

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 succinct and well-structured. The opening sentence states the purpose immediately, followed by a compact args list, and a final note on an important security limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's generic nature and the presence of an output schema (which presumably documents the return shape), the description covers essential aspects: scope (allow-list), single-resource retrieval, namespace condition, and the Secrets exclusion. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: resource (type and allow-list reference), name (object name), and namespace (required for namespaced types). This adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and types, making the parameters self-explanatory.

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 'Generic get of one allow-listed OCM resource, in full' with a specific verb ('get'), resource ('OCM resource'), and scope ('allow-listed', 'one'). It distinguishes itself from the many specific getter tools (e.g., get_cluster) by emphasizing its generic nature and references the allow-list, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: it is a generic getter for allow-listed resources, and the namespace requirement for namespaced types is specified. It also notes that Secrets are excluded, which is a key limitation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over specific getter tools or list_resources, leaving the alternative selection implied rather than explicit.

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