Get mission

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

Without annotations, the description uses 'Read' to convey a non-mutating operation and adds the authoritative note. However, it omits any details on authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, which a read operation might not require but could still be disclosed. It provides some context but misses potentially important traits.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first provides the core functionality and the second adds a valuable authoritative note. Every word earns its place.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a bonus tip. However, it leaves out details like return format, potential errors, or how the authority might affect usage, but these may not be critical for this tool. It's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 must compensate. It hints at the includeDetails parameter by mentioning 'optionally its task, artifact, claim, and review state,' but does not explicitly map this to the schema's parameter name or clarify the default behavior. It adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Read a mission' which is a specific verb and resource, and clearly scopes to optionally include related task, artifact, claim, and review state. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, the scope is distinct enough to avoid confusion in most cases.

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 sentence 'Treat this result as authoritative over chat summaries' implies a key use case—when ground truth is needed—but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives. This is implied usage guidance rather than explicit direction.

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