pool_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by noting it returns a 404 on a wrong id, which is useful beyond the annotations. This extra error-behavior disclosure makes it more transparent than a bare description.

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 that front-loads the [READ] marker and immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient with no redundancy.

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 get tool with annotations, the description covers the core behavior and error case. However, it lacks any explanation of the 'target' parameter and does not specify what 'full detail' includes, which could be ambiguous. Given that there is no output schema to fall back on, the description could be more complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It references 'by id' which maps to the required pool_id, but it completely leaves the optional 'target' parameter unexplained. Since the description only partially clarifies one parameter and ignores the other, it falls short of the necessary compensation.

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 'Full detail for one desktop pool by id', which specifies the action (get detail), the resource (desktop pool), and the scope (one by id). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pool_list, which presumably lists pools, by focusing on a single pool's full detail.

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 the use case: when you need the full detail of a specific desktop pool identified by id. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool. Lacking explicit contrast with pool_list prevents a higher score.

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