get_passage

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

The description discloses what the tool does (retrieves passages, supports certain versions, can reveal decision codes) but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden of transparency.

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 concise and well-organized. It opens with a one-line purpose, lists versions in a bullet-like format, and then enumerates arguments with examples. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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 description covers the tool's inputs and behavior but does not explicitly describe the return structure or any error cases. Given the tool's simplicity and the specified output format, this is largely sufficient, though a brief note on return content would make it fully complete.

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?

All five parameters are clearly explained. Reference includes examples, version lists all enum options, include_notes and show_decision_codes have explicit meanings, and format specifies the available output types. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 the tool's purpose: to retrieve Scripture from the Open English Translation. It lists the supported versions, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like compare_translations or search_text, though the function is nonetheless clear.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it explains the parameters and versions, it does not mention cases where another tool might be more appropriate, leaving usage decisions to the agent.

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