get_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals case-insensitive matching and that names can be used in place of IDs, but it does not mention read-only behavior or what happens when no strategy is found.

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?

One short sentence fully fronts the operation and includes only meaningful information: the resource, identifier modes, and case-insensitivity. No redundancy.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema getter, the description and input schema are largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The main gaps are explicit sibling-tool routing and not-found/return behavior, which are minor for this simple read operation.

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?

The schema already documents 'id' as 'The ID or name of the strategy', so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly noting case-insensitive lookup, which is important for correctly passing name values.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get a strategy by ID or name'. It also adds a useful qualifier (case-insensitive) and distinguishes itself from sibling list/context tools by focusing on a single strategy lookup.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need a single strategy and have its ID or name. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_strategies for enumeration or get_strategy_context for context-specific retrieval.

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