get_nest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with potentially incomplete data. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies authentication requirements ('Requires Application API key'), administrative context ('admin action'), and return data structure ('Returns name, description, author, and metadata'), though it doesn't mention rate limits or error behavior.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, return values, and prerequisites. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, and key details are front-loaded. There's no wasted verbiage or repetition.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and comprehensive annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, authentication, and return structure. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on response format or error cases, though the annotations provide safety context.

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 100%, with the parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that nest_id comes 'from list_nests,' but doesn't provide additional format or validation details. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Get details'), resource ('a specific nest'), and scope ('by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_nests (which lists all nests) and get_egg (which retrieves egg details). It explicitly identifies the resource as an 'egg category' for additional clarity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('by ID'), when not to use it (use list_nests to find the nest_id), and names the alternative tool (list_nests). It also specifies prerequisites ('Requires Application API key') and context ('admin action').

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