cpu_get_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It states the operation is read-only, requires no session, explains edge-case behavior ('A resource nothing touches answers with empty groups, not an error'), and clarifies scope boundaries like market price exclusion.

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?

Although detailed, every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the tool's purpose, then systematically enumerates returned role groups, storage bounds, fee semantics, exclusions, edge cases, and access requirements. The semicolon-separated structure keeps the information dense but scannable.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description tells an agent exactly what data to expect, how to interpret roles, what boundary constraints exist, and what happens in degenerate cases. It is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already describes resourceId fully: type, catalog id, example, and reference to cpu_get_game_config. The description repeats that same information without adding new parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns everything the rulebook holds about one resource 'in one call.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that market price is owned by cpu_get_market_index, and it defines the exact semantic categories returned.

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 says when to use this tool: when you need all rulebook facts about a single resource. It also gives a concrete when-not/alternative: 'Market price is NOT here — cpu_get_market_index owns it.' It further guides invocation by pointing to cpu_get_game_config for the resource id.

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