kaiten_get_custom_property

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by indicating the response includes type-specific settings, but says nothing about scope/permissions or behavior for missing or inaccessible properties.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a tool whose whole point is reading a typed property definition, the description omits any explanation of what a custom property is, how types affect the returned settings, or the failure mode for an invalid id.

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 0%, so the description would need to explain property_id, yet it never mentions the parameter at all. The schema is a single positive integer, so an agent can guess its meaning, but the description contributes no meaning beyond it and does not say what happens with a non-existent or out-of-scope id.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('custom property definition'), plus the qualifier 'type-specific settings' that signals the payload includes configuration beyond the bare definition. It implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling kaiten_list_custom_properties, though it never names it.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer kaiten_list_custom_properties instead, and no prerequisites or error conditions (e.g., unknown property_id). Usage is only inferable from the verb and the single required id.

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