vectis_get_mission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the tool reads saved data and does not rerun anything, which clarifies the non-execution behavior and distinguishes it from tools that might trigger workflows. This is meaningful added context.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and the resource, then adds a clarifying exclusion ('does not rerun anything'). Every word earns its place; 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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what data is returned (raw evidence, report, pending calls, actual costs) and that nothing is rerun. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return format, but with no output schema and a read-only tool, this is acceptable.

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 for the single parameter. The description does not explain what missionId means beyond the schema's pattern, but the tool name and description make it reasonably clear that missionId identifies the mission whose saved data is read. With only one parameter and a clear name, the gap is minor, but the description could have explicitly stated that missionId is the identifier of the mission to read.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('saved raw evidence, report, pending calls and actual costs'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vectis_start_mission or vectis_save_report. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate it from the other tools.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to read saved mission data without rerunning anything. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the phrase 'does not rerun anything' provides a useful exclusion that helps an agent avoid using it for execution tasks.

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