get_deviance_by_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, required permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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 sentence of seven words, containing no unnecessary text. It gets to the point quickly. A minor improvement could be adding a note about which parameter is the 'id' to improve structure.

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 simple get operation with three path parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the roles of infrastructureId and directoryId, nor does it describe the return value. The absence of output schema means the agent has no clue what to expect from the response.

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 100%, with all three parameters described as 'Path parameter:'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'by id', which aligns with one parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ad-object-deviance-history instance'), and indicates the identifier used. However, the resource name is jargon-heavy and may not be immediately clear to all agents. It does distinguish from siblings like 'get_deviance' and 'list_deviances_by_directory' by specifying 'by id'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., 'get_deviance', 'list_deviances_by_directory', 'list_deviances_by_checker'). No when-to-use, 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.