organizer_tools_get_one

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The keyword 'read-only' suggests a safe read, but there's no statement about permission requirements, error behavior for missing UUIDs, or whether it returns full tool details. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for a retrieval tool.

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 short but front-loaded with the core purpose. The keyword list is extensive and repetitive, adding bulk without informational value. The route template is useful, but the keyword enumeration is excessive.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and route. However, without annotations or output schema, it should at least state that it returns a single tool object or note authentication needs. The presence of many similar sibling tools means an agent must distinguish based on parameter type (UUID vs slug), which is only implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description doesn't document the 'item_id' parameter beyond its name. However, the route template '/{item_id}' and the keyword list imply UUID-based lookup, which is minimally helpful. With only one simple parameter, this is borderline adequate but lacks explicit format or constraints.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get tool' from organizer tools) and includes the HTTP route with a path parameter. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like organizer_tools_get_all or explorer_tools_get_one. The title is redundant but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explain that this is for retrieving a single tool by UUID versus by slug (organizer_tools_get_one_by_slug) or that a separate call to get_all exists. The keyword list implies usage but doesn't provide routing rationale.

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