get_allocation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get details') and hints at return content ('including task states and events'), but it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior. For a tool that likely performs a simple retrieval, the description is under-specified.

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 that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to the purpose ('Get details of a single allocation, including task states and events'). This is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and indicates the type of details included. However, it lacks contextual completeness because it does not explain when to use this tool over sibling tools (e.g., get_allocation_logs) or provide any caveats. The absence of any behavioral or usage notes leaves gaps for an agent making tool-selection decisions.

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 has one parameter 'id' (string, required) with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter or provide any additional meaning, such as the format of the ID, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The parameter name alone is insufficient, especially since the description lacks any parameter-specific information.

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's function: 'Get details of a single allocation, including task states and events.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('a single allocation'), and the mention of 'task states and events' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_allocation_logs (which focuses on logs) or list_job_allocations (which lists multiple allocations).

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 does not provide any explicit usage guidance, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_allocation_logs vs get_allocation). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The only hint is that it retrieves a single allocation, which is implied by the name, but no direct comparison or decision framework is offered.

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