unit_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation and that a response containing unit details is expected, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or which fields are returned.

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, short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and object. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus schema are sufficient for correct invocation. It could mention not-found or error conventions, but nothing essential 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?

The only parameter, unitId, is already fully documented in the schema as 'The unit ID to retrieve.' The tool description adds no further semantic or format detail, so with 100% schema coverage it sits at the baseline.

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 verb 'Get' plus the resource phrase 'details of a specific unit' clearly identifies a read operation for a single unit. The qualifier 'specific' separates it from list- and count-style siblings like unit_list and unit_count.

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 this tool is for retrieving one unit's details rather than creating, updating, deleting, or listing units. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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