get_ci_catalog_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description reinforces the read-only nature ('It is read-only and does not mutate GitLab data') and adds transparency about error responses (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits are returned as errors). This goes beyond the annotations by detailing failure modes, so while the annotations lower the bar, the description adds meaningful context.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. It efficiently covers read-only status, error conditions, and a general identifier/pagination note. The final sentence about `project_id`/`group_id` is slightly off-topic and could be removed, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers error handling (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits) and mentions pagination fields. It does not elaborate on component or version limits beyond the schema, but those are self-explanatory. The description is sufficiently complete for a read-only getter with known parameters.

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% (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant semantic information beyond the schema. It includes a generic note about 'use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented' but this is redundant with the schema descriptions. The mention of `project_id` or `group_id` is confusing because these are not actual parameters in this tool, but it does not clarify the inputs further.

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 function: 'Get details for a GitLab CI/CD Catalog resource, including versions and components.' It also distinguishes it from the list tool by specifying when to use it: 'Use this for a known resource or result; choose the corresponding list or search tool when you need to discover multiple resources.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like list_ci_catalog_resources.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this for a known resource or result; choose the corresponding list or search tool when you need to discover multiple resources.' It also notes the tool is read-only and mentions error conditions (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits). This gives clear direction on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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