hookbase_get_destination

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'detailed information' and 'authentication configuration', which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific destination') and adds a useful detail ('including authentication configuration'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what but lacks context on usage, behavior, or output format. For a simple read tool, it's passable but leaves gaps in guidance and transparency that could hinder optimal agent use.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'destination_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format examples or where to find the ID). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific destination', including the scope 'authentication configuration'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hookbase_list_destinations (which lists multiple) and hookbase_update_destination (which modifies). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like hookbase_test_destination, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a destination ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like hookbase_list_destinations (for browsing) or hookbase_test_destination (for validation). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage.

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