get_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it is a read operation (tagged [READ]) and details return content (badges, etc.), plus optional target parameter. Does not contradict annotations and adds useful context beyond them.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the key action and data, followed by usage guidance, then parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose; no wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (2 params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers input meaning, usage context, and output contents. It is complete for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters: 'resource_id: The resource UUID (from list_resources). target: Optional Aria Operations target name from config. Uses default if omitted.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only entries.

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?

Description starts with '[READ] Get full details for one resource by UUID' which clearly states the verb and resource. It enumerates included data (health, risk, efficiency badges, kind, identifiers, status) and distinguishes from siblings like list_resources, get_resource_health, get_resource_metrics.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after list_resources to inspect a single resource in depth; use list_resources (not this tool) to discover UUIDs by kind or name. For just the health score use get_resource_health; for time-series metrics use get_resource_metrics.' Provides when-to-use and alternatives.

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