get_desktop_pool

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a wrong id returns a 404 whose hint tells you to re-run list_desktop_pools, and the returned projection matches a single list row. It does not cover auth/permission requirements, but the added error and projection behavior is substantive.

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?

Two short sentences with the read-only tag and scope front-loaded, followed by the projection and the when-to-use clause. No filler, no repetition of annotation data.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned projection (id, name, type, enabled, provisioning_enabled, assignment), which is exactly the return-value context the agent needs. Combined with the error behavior and selection guidance, nothing material is missing for a two-parameter read tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the opaque-id warning and the 404 hint. The description largely restates the pool_id semantics rather than adding format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('[READ] One desktop pool by id'), and immediately contrasts with the sibling list_desktop_pools by saying it fetches a single GET instead of listing every pool. An agent can distinguish it from list/task siblings without opening any schema.

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 names the two conditions that select this tool: 're-check one pool after a write' and 'when you already hold an id'. It also names the alternative (list_desktop_pools) and the reason to prefer it when ids are unknown (the 404 hint routes back to list_desktop_pools).

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