get_resource

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about return fields, badge score behavior (null when not scored), and the target parameter's default behavior, going beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a [READ] prefix, a clear purpose statement, and concise details. Every sentence adds value, including usage guidance and parameter explanations.

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 low complexity and strong annotations, the description provides complete context: what is returned, how to use it, and alternatives. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by listing the return fields.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly explains resource_id as the UUID from list_resources and target as the config target name with default behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's bare type definitions.

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 returns a single resource object and enumerates the fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is used after list_resources and does not accept a name, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('after list_resources to inspect a single UUID') and provides alternatives for other use cases (get_resource_health for badges, get_resource_metrics for metrics). Includes a clear constraint (does not accept a name).

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