get_flame_detail

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 describes the returned content (full details, article content, AI analysis, reading guidance), but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 two concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and usage guidance following. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description summarizes the response contents reasonably well by listing key components (article content, AI analysis, reading guidance). However, 'full details' could be more specific about metadata fields, but for a complex tool the description provides adequate contextual completeness.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a description ('Bookmark UUID'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Flame bookmark'), and explicitly lists the included content types (extracted article content, AI analysis, reading guidance). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_bookmark or get_article_content, which likely focus on narrower aspects.

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 clear usage context: 'deep-read a bookmark before deciding its fate.' This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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