get_resource

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

Annotations already convey readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by detailing the shape of the returned object, the badge scoring range, and the null condition when Aria has not scored a badge. This helps the agent reason about output without an output schema.

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?

Three dense sentences carry a lot of value: the first summarizes the return payload, the second positions the tool in a workflow and states its key limitation, and the third routes to alternatives. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (the UUID-only restriction) is front and center.

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 read tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully compensates for the missing output schema by listing all returned fields and the badge structure. It also covers usage context, parameter source, and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explicitly noting that resource_id must be a UUID obtained from list_resources and that the tool 'does not accept a name,' which prevents callers from passing a human-readable identifier. This is meaningful clarification beyond the schema description.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Returns one resource object', then enumerates the exact fields returned so an agent knows what to expect. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_resource_health and get_resource_metrics, making it easy to tell apart from sibling tools.

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?

It states exactly when to use it: 'Use this after list_resources to inspect a single UUID in depth', and gives an explicit exclusion: 'it does not accept a name, so use list_resources to discover UUIDs by kind or name.' It also names the specific sibling tools for badge-only or time-series needs, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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