Erinys Get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one real behavioral fact — content is returned in full, not truncated — but says nothing about what happens when the ID does not exist, whether the read has side effects, or any access constraints.

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 sentence with the action and its distinguishing property front-loaded; nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described. But with no annotations and a fully undocumented `intended_use` parameter, the definition leaves gaps an agent must guess at — notably the effect of that parameter and not-found behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: 'by ID' glosses the required `id`, but the second parameter `intended_use` (default 'context') is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. An agent has no basis for setting or omitting it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single observation by ID', and adds a meaningful qualifier ('full content, untruncated') that signals contrast with the truncating siblings like erinys_search or erinys_recall. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'by ID' framing implies this is the direct-lookup path rather than a query path, which is usable context. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of erinys_recall/erinys_search when...' guidance and no prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing among 27 siblings.

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