get_mixin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the retrieval surface (signature, parameter list, doc comment, body, source path and line range), which tells the agent this is a read-only single-item lookup. It says nothing about error behavior for missing names, or whether the full body is always returned regardless of size.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a tight enumeration of return fields. No filler and nothing that fails to earn 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape and it does so explicitly, which is exactly the gap it should fill for a single-fetch tool. Only the error path for a non-existent mixin is left unaddressed, a minor omission for a simple read.

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%: the single 'name' parameter is documented in the schema with concrete examples ('btn', 'card'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Return one mixin') and enumerates the payload that comes back, so an agent knows this is a single-record fetch. The singular scope implicitly distinguishes it from list_mixins and search_mixins, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied by the get/list/search naming convention shared across the sibling set; the description never says when to reach for this over search_mixins or list_mixins, nor what happens for an unknown name. The minimum viable context is present but nothing is stated outright.

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