Get mission

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

With no annotations, the description correctly signals a non-mutating read and discloses an important behavior: strategy, portrait, and directorPlan are returned even when includeDetails is false. It could go further on return format or failure semantics, but it covers the main surprises.

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?

Two informative sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by an important caveat. Every clause adds value and there is no 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 2-parameter read tool, the description conveys the core behavior and a key semantic nuance of includeDetails. The absence of an output schema and the lack of explicit return-value details is a minor gap, not a blocker.

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 0% but the description adds real meaning for includeDetails, explaining that core mission-row fields are present regardless of that flag. missionId remains minimally described, but its basic identity purpose is self-evident.

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 clear read operation with a specific resource (mission) and optional related state (task, artifact, claim, review). It is distinguishable from mission_create and mission_close, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling 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 gives strong contextual guidance by saying the result is authoritative over chat summaries, which tells the agent when to prefer this tool. It does not list explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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