get_part

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates that this is a read operation ('Get') and gives some indication of the return content (full details including specification fields like pin count and gauge). However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as error handling for invalid IDs, authentication requirements, or the exact structure of the returned details. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and a relevant detail about the return content. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the action and provides examples of what 'full details' include. It could be enhanced by mentioning the absence of a return-schema or clarifying how this differs from lookup_part, but overall it covers the essential context well.

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 coverage is 100%: the single 'id' parameter is already described as 'Part UUID'. The description only repeats 'by ID' and adds no new semantic information about the parameter format, constraints, or usage. Since the schema covers the parameter fully, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: retrieving full details for a specific part by ID, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('part'). It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'lookup_part', which may serve a similar purpose, so it loses a point for lacking sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternative lookup or search tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to use lookup_part instead, or any context for choosing this over search_* tools. The description offers no usage context beyond the basic action.

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