get_siren

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The explicit HTTP GET method signals a read-only operation, and the host format and id provenance add useful behavioral context. It does not describe error/not-found behavior, but the output schema likely covers the return shape.

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 concise lines front-load the purpose and endpoint, then detail the two parameters with no redundant text. 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?

The tool has only two required parameters, both fully explained. Output schema handles return values, and the description gives enough workflow context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains host's accepted formats (console name, ID, or composite ID) and siren_id's required status and source. This goes far beyond the bare string types in the schema.

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 ('Get'), a single resource ('one siren'), and the exact endpoint (GET /v1/sirens/{id}). The 'by id' scope clearly differentiates it from list_sirens and other siren-related 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?

The instruction to obtain siren_id from `list_sirens` implies the intended workflow for fetching a specific siren after listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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