get_automation

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. It only restates the basic purpose and does not mention any behavioral traits such as return format, error conditions, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but no specifics are given about what 'full details' includes, leaving the agent without useful contextual information.

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 concise, with two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides parameter details. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation and delivers information efficiently without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what 'full details' means or what the response will contain. It does not. The single parameter is documented, but the tool's return value, error behavior, and usage context are absent. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the outcome of the call.

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 schema only specifies `automation_id` as a string with no description. The description adds the semantic that it is 'The automation UUID,' providing the expected format and meaning. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage and is valuable for correct 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get full details of a single automation.' The verb 'Get' is specific, and the phrase 'single automation' distinguishes it from `list_automations`, which lists multiple automations. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 implies usage: when you need full details of one automation by ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it compare with `list_automations` or other sibling tools. The context is clear but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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