Get operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'full detail' including SDK mapping, which is useful, but it does not explain whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, what happens if the operationId is invalid, or the structure of the response. For a tool that likely performs a read operation, this lack of behavioral context is a notable gap, but the description at least gives a hint of the output content.

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, concise sentence that is easy to scan and quickly conveys the main purpose. It is not overly verbose, and the key detail (SDK mapping) is included without excessive fluff. It could arguably be more front-loaded with an explicit statement of the resource, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. An agent lacks critical information such as how to obtain a valid operationId, what the 'full detail' includes beyond SDK mapping, and the nature of the response (e.g., errors, not found cases). The description is a minimal stub that leaves too much to inference.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description only mentions 'per-language SDK mapping' which indirectly relates to the output, not the input parameter. It does not explain what operationId represents (e.g., a string identifier of a specific API operation), format expectations, or how to obtain it. Since there is only one parameter, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type definition.

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 clearly identifies the resource (a public API operation) and the kind of information returned (full detail, including per-language SDK mapping). It is more specific than just the name, and while it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the focus on 'operation' and 'SDK mapping' helps set it apart from tools like get_capability or get_recipe.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving details about a specific operation, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives like search_knowledge or explain_error. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing an operationId). The context is somewhat clear but not fully elaborated.

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