get_primer

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation ('gets'), but omits details like error handling, required permissions, or whether the operation is safe. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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: two sentences with no redundant wording. The key verb is front-loaded ('Gets'), and the constraint is stated immediately. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 simple (get a primer by path), and the description covers purpose and a necessary constraint. However, it does not explain what a primer is, the output format, or error scenarios. For a basic getter, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 lacks a description (0% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that the path must be an element of list_primers, providing a domain constraint. However, it does not specify path format, examples, or validation rules, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Gets a primer at the given path,' which specifies a distinct action (getting) on a resource (primer). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_primers (which lists) and compile_program (which compiles).

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 a crucial precondition: the path must come from list_primers. This guides users to first list primers and then use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives for fetching primers.

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