invariance_divergence_get

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true) and open-world (openWorldHint=true). The description says 'get,' which is consistent with those annotations and adds no contradictory or surprising behavior. However, it also provides no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple single-resource getter and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 tool with one simple parameter and read-only annotations, the description is minimally viable: the agent knows to supply an ID. However, 'divergence' is domain-specific jargon, and there is no mention of where IDs come from or what the response contains, so an agent unfamiliar with the domain would still lack meaningful context.

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 carries the burden of explaining the 'id' parameter. 'By ID' conveys that the id is a divergence identifier, but that is only slightly more than the parameter name itself. It does not explain the ID format, how to obtain valid IDs, or the meaning of the returned divergence.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('divergence'), and the retrieval scope ('by ID'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like invariance_divergence_list and invariance_divergence_update, so an agent can identify what this tool does without needing to open its schema.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention invariance_divergence_list for enumerating divergences or invariance_divergence_update for modifying one, nor does it describe any exclusions or preconditions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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