get_fob

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly marks the operation as GET (read-only) and documents accepted host formats, but does not mention error/not-found behavior, authentication, or side-effect absence beyond the GET method. This is adequate but minimal.

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 with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, endpoint is given, and each parameter gets a meaningful note. Every line 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?

Given the tool's simple get-by-id nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers operation, endpoint, and parameter acquisition. Nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates: it explains host's accepted identity formats and specifies that fob_id is required and where to obtain it (list_fobs.id). This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs beyond bare string fields.

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 opens with 'Get one fob by id,' a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_fobs (list all) and update_fob (modify). The explicit GET endpoint reinforces the exact operation.

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?

It provides concrete guidance for both parameters: host accepts console name, ID, or composite ID, and fob_id is required and should be obtained from list_fobs. It does not explicitly contrast when to choose get_fob over list_fobs or update_fob, but the single-entity purpose implies the use case.

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