luceed_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it declares the operation read-only and discloses that mutating paths are blocked when LUCEED_READ_ONLY=true, a conditional safety constraint an agent must know. It omits auth requirements, error/return shape, and rate behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, followed by the safety constraint, routing preference, and a concrete example. No filler; every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, but for a raw pass-through GET the description gives enough to call it correctly: scope, path format, example, and the read-only constraint. A brief note on the response envelope or failure modes would round it out.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by clarifying the path is relative under /datasnap/rest/ and giving a concrete example ('artikli/sifra/111') that demonstrates the expected format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a raw read-only GET against any relative datasnap/rest path. It explicitly scopes itself against siblings by saying it covers paths 'not covered' and to 'Prefer catalog tools when possible', so the agent can distinguish it from luceed_catalog and the many resource-specific tools.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use ('not covered', 'ad-hoc exploration') and names the preferred alternative (catalog tools). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it beyond the preference, but the routing guidance is concrete and actionable.

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