wall_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important behavioral trait — default filtering to verified rows and the all:true escape hatch — plus the shape of returned rows (id, tier, verified_by). It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: default behavior first, override second, returned fields last. The telegraphic style is efficient for an agent, though the fragmented phrasing is slightly cryptic without surrounding context.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the returned row fields (id, tier with its enum values, verified_by). Combined with the default-vs-all filtering rule, an agent has nearly everything needed to call and interpret this tool; only auth/permission context is absent.

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% and the single parameter has no description, but the description compensates well: 'all:true = every row (?all=1)' explains both the semantic meaning and the wire encoding of the parameter.

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 and resource ('GET wall'), names the underlying endpoint (/punch-list.json), and defines the default scope (verified rows only). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like pending_get or trail_get, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the tool defaults to verified-label rows and the caller opts into the full set via all:true. There is no statement of when to prefer a sibling tool or any exclusions, so it is context-rich but not fully routing-aware.

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