get_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the HTML fields are author-written markup to be treated as data, the returned object is the sequence rather than the publication, and a specific separate credential is required. These are valuable disclosures not present in 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses short, meaningful sentences for additional guidance. Each paragraph earns its place: the markup safety warning, the sequence-vs-publication distinction, and the credential note. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the primary purpose, the id semantics, a security-relevant field handling detail, the relation to a sibling tool, and an external prerequisite. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must clarify parameters. It says the tool fetches by id, establishing the id parameter as the learning path identifier. The parameter is simple and single, so this is sufficient, though the description does not specify id format or additional 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one learning path by id, with its full descriptions.' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from related tools by noting that this returns the sequence, not its publication, and pointing to list_published_paths for visibility.

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 provides explicit usage context: use this for a learning path's sequence/full descriptions, not for publication status. It names the alternative tool, list_published_paths, for determining where the path is actually visible, which helps an agent choose correctly among siblings.

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