get_desk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns 'complete settings' and mentions Smart Name Resolution. However, it lacks explicit safety guarantees, side effects, or error behavior. Given no read-only annotation, the agent cannot be sure it's non-destructive.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word contributes; no fluff or repetition.

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 retrieval tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, how to specify the desk, and parameter interaction. It omits error handling (e.g., desk not found) and assumes the agent knows the structure of returned settings, but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the fuzzy match behavior for desk_name (Smart Name Resolution) and the precedence rule when both are provided.

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 states the tool retrieves complete desk settings (configurações completas de uma mesa), specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like list_desks by focusing on a single desk's full details, and from other get_* tools by the resource type.

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 explains when to use each parameter (desk_id for direct, desk_name for fuzzy) and the precedence rule. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like list_desks or when not to use it.

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