shelf_get_kit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds one genuinely behavioral detail beyond the annotations — that contained assets are included in the response — but says nothing about pagination, error behavior when a kit is missing, or permission scope.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the key payload (contained assets) front-loaded. It is efficient, though borderline terse given the gaps elsewhere.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what you get' but is thin on what 'details' comprises and omits any error or scope notes. Annotations carry the safety profile, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 only 50%: orgId is documented in the schema, but the required kitId has no description anywhere. The description's mention of 'kit' only loosely implies the identifier and adds no format or sourcing detail, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Get kit details') and adds useful scope ('incl. contained assets'), so an agent knows this returns a single kit with its assets. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like shelf_list_kits or shelf_get_asset, leaving the retrieval-vs-list distinction implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as shelf_list_kits (enumeration) versus this single-kit fetch. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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