get_relay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It identifies the operation as a GET request, implying read-only single-resource retrieval, and adds host id-format details. It doesn't discuss errors or auth, but the endpoint and retrieval semantics are clear.

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 the main action front-loaded. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what it does, host format, and how to source relay_id.

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 two-parameter getter, the description covers the endpoint, both parameter formats, and the source of the id. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job.

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%, and the description fully compensates: host is explained as console name, ID, or composite ID, and relay_id is marked REQUIRED with explicit provenance from list_relays. Both parameters receive meaning beyond the bare string type.

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 ('Get one relay by id') and includes the exact REST endpoint. This clearly differentiates it from list_relays, update_relay, and relay_activate_output.

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?

Tells the agent to obtain relay_id from list_relays, which is a concrete prerequisite and workflow hint. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list/update/activate siblings, but the id lookup guidance covers the main usage decision.

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