get_ci_catalog_resource

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which agree with 'Get details'. The description adds that the details include versions and components, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with 6 parameters and conditional 'anyOf' logic, the description provides a good high-level overview. It mentions versions and components, which are key outputs. However, it could briefly note the requirement for 'id' or 'full_path', though the schema handles that explicitly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the high-level purpose. The schema descriptions already document defaults, constraints, and conditional requirements.

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 retrieves details for a GitLab CI/CD Catalog resource, including versions and components. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_ci_catalog_resources' which likely only lists resources without details.

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 usage for getting detailed information about a specific resource, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_ci_catalog_resources'. No when-not or conditions are mentioned.

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