hcm_get_checklist

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the operation is safe; the description adds a modest behavioral note that expand=allocatedTasks may not be supported in all environments. No contradictions. However, it does not disclose error behavior, not-found handling, or response structure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core action immediately and appends a useful caveat about expand support. No unnecessary words.

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 simple read-only get-by-id with an optional expand parameter, the description covers the essential call semantics. The main gap is unspecified return behavior for missing IDs and the meaning of 'allocated checklist', but annotations and schema cover the rest.

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 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by naming 'id' and 'allocatedTasks', but the guidance is thin: it does not clarify the format of checklistId or fully explain expand values. Adds some meaning beyond the raw schema but leaves details to inference.

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 specifies a verb ('Get'), a resource ('allocated checklist'), and a selector ('by id'). This distinguishes it from list/allocate/force-close siblings, making the operation identifiable at a glance.

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 the tool should be used when you have a checklist ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with hcm_list_checklists or other checklist-related tools. No exclusions or alternative-router guidance is provided.

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