pix_get_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds what the returned descriptor includes, which is useful but does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as error conditions or output size. No contradiction exists.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence is information-dense and the second provides essential usage guidance. Every word 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description leaves capture_id and timeout_seconds underspecified, which is a noticeable gap given zero schema descriptions. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'index' comes from pix_list_resources, but it does not explain the role of capture_id or timeout_seconds. With three parameters and only one partially documented, the agent is left to infer the rest.

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 the action ('Describe one resource') and specifies the exact content of the descriptor: full descriptor, heap, initial state, and view summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pix_get_resource_views, which presumably returns only views.

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 instruction 'index comes from pix_list_resources' explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the index parameter, establishing a clear usage flow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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