get_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get an Excalidraw resource', which implies a read operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentence, 'Get an Excalidraw resource', which is very concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, but it may be overly terse given the lack of detail needed for clarity and completeness.

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 complexity (1 parameter with enum but no output schema or annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' does operationally, what the resource types entail, or what the return value is. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves too many gaps for effective use.

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 1 parameter with an enum list (scene, library, theme, elements) but 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema, but since there's only one parameter and the enum provides clear options, the baseline is high. However, it doesn't explain what each enum value means, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states the tool 'Get an Excalidraw resource' which provides a basic verb ('Get') and resource type ('Excalidraw resource'), but it's vague about what specific resources are available or what 'Get' entails (e.g., fetch metadata, retrieve content). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'query_elements' or 'create_element', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'query_elements' and 'create_element', there's no indication if this is for general resource retrieval, specific types, or different contexts. The description lacks any when-to-use or exclusion statements.

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