get_api_gateway_operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' weakly implies a read-only operation, but it discloses nothing else: no response format, no existence conditions for the operation, no pagination or error behavior, and no mention of how zone_id scopes the lookup. This is minimal transparency.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. The key information (action and target) is front-loaded and every word earns its place. For a simple get-by-ID tool this size is appropriate.

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 low-complexity tool with two params and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states what the tool does and the schema covers the required inputs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left guessing what 'details' are returned and how the operation_id should be obtained. A mention of expected return contents or the link to list_api_gateway_operations would complete it.

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 even though the description itself adds nothing about parameters. However, the schema descriptions ('The zone ID', 'The operation ID') are essentially tautological restatements of the parameter names, so the agent gains little real semantic meaning. The description neither compensates for this nor adds any relationship between the two parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('an API Gateway operation'), which clearly identifies the action and target. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_api_gateway_* tools like get_api_gateway_config or list_api_gateway_operations, though the 'operation' resource scoping helps. It is close to restating the tool name but expands it slightly with '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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_api_gateway_operations or other API Gateway siblings. No context is given about prerequisites, such as whether an operation_id must first be obtained from a list call or whether API Shield must be enabled. Usage context is only weakly implied by the 'Get' verb.

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