Delimit Resource Get

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that it performs a network call through a driver and names the internal functions it invokes (ai.data_plane.get_driver and the driver's get_* method). This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail failure modes or connection requirements.

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 organized into labeled sections, starts with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct value: scope, exclusions, sibling contrast, and side effects. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 single-item read tool, the description covers what it does, when to use it, when not to, how it behaves, and its side effects; the schema documents all parameters and an output schema exists. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly without additional assumptions.

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 applies and the schema already explains repo, driver, resource, and identifier. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; its mention of 'single item by identifier' supports conceptual semantics but is not necessary for invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('a specific resource from a connected data-plane system'), and explicitly limits scope to a single item by identifier: repo, PR, issue, or workflow run. It also distinguishes itself by saying delimit_resource_list returns many while this returns one.

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?

It includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming the exact sibling tools to choose instead (delimit_resource_list, delimit_resource_drivers). This gives an agent clear decision criteria rather than leaving the choice to inference.

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