misakanet_get_lesson

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: side effects none, auth none, rate limits/stdio context, content truncation to 5000 chars, and enumerated error cases (missing inputs, not found with search suggestion, path outside lessons/). It also discloses non-obvious behavior like canonical-set dedup matching and traversal validation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then input/output/error/safety facts in a logical order. It is dense and every clause is informative, though the trailing 'Side effects / Auth / Rate limits' tail is slightly list-like and longer than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly documents the return shape ({path, content}) and the truncation cap. It covers errors, precedence, and safety, leaving an agent with essentially everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial semantics beyond it: exactly one of path/id, path precedence when both are given, handler returns {error} when neither is given, path traversal validation, and that id matches only the canonical set while mirrors/translations require an explicit path. These are real behavioral constraints not derivable from the schema.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one public MisakaNet lesson) with the two addressing modes (path or lesson ID). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling misakanet_search by ruling out broad discovery, so an agent can distinguish them without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (after misakanet_search returns a promising result, or when a lesson is explicitly referenced) and when-not (broad discovery), naming the sibling that covers the excluded case. Nothing is left to inference.

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