retrieve_initiative

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description reinforces. It adds valuable context about a specific error case when the initiatives feature is disabled, including steps mentioned in the error. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Every sentence provides meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple retrieval with an output schema covering the return format. The description explains an error condition and provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly. Could optionally mention that the initiative is a work item type, but not required.

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 only defines 'initiative_id' as a string without format. The description adds that it is a 'UUID,' specifying the expected format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this addition is important and goes beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieve an initiative by ID,' specifying the action (retrieve) and resource (initiative). It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_project' and 'list_initiatives' by focusing on a single initiative retrieval via ID.

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 have an initiative ID and need the full object, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., list_initiatives when you need to search). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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