get_tool

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

The description states 'Get full details' but does not elaborate on what details are returned, potential errors, or that it is a read-only operation. However, the context parameter's description adds behavioral constraints (third-person, word count), compensating somewhat. No annotations are provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. 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 is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but sufficient for a straightforward retrieval. However, it lacks details on output format or error cases, which would improve completeness.

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 description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. Hence, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'get[s] full details of a specific AI tool by its slug from StackFiesta.' This distinguishes it from the sibling find_tools, which likely searches for tools, by emphasizing specificity and use of a slug.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus find_tools. The name and description imply usage when a slug is known, but no when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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