pool_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning that a wrong ID results in a 404 error, which is not provided by the annotations. It does not add further details on authentication or rate limits, but the 404 disclosure adds value.

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 concise sentence with a useful [READ] prefix that front-loads the operation type. It is appropriately brief, though the phrase 'teaching 404' is likely a typo for 'throwing 404', which slightly detracts from clarity. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 of a get-by-id operation and strong annotations, the description covers the core behavior and error case (404). However, there is no output schema, and the description does not elaborate on what 'full detail' includes or explain the optional target parameter. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 input schema has two parameters (target and pool_id) with 0% coverage from the description. The description only mentions 'by id', which maps to pool_id, but does not explain the meaning of the target parameter or provide any additional context such as formats or defaults. Since schema coverage is zero, the description should compensate but does not.

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 purpose: retrieving full detail for a single desktop pool by ID. The verb 'get' combined with 'full detail' and 'by id' makes the action and resource unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pool_list (which lists pools) and machine_get (which gets machines).

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need full details of a specific desktop pool identified by its ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like pool_list for listing all pools. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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