Get strategy detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format ('compact JSON') and an important negative behavior ('the raw graph is never dumped'), which helps set expectations. It stops short of stating read-only semantics or error conditions, but for a fetch operation this is reasonable.

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 tightly written: one sentence for purpose, one for usage context, one for parameters/return format. It front-loads the core action and every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, where to get the ID, and how it connects to optimize_strategy. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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% and the schema already explains the parameter ('Strategy UUID. Find it with list_strategies... Not a strategy name.'). The description adds only 'find it with list_strategies', which overlaps with schema text. No new meaning is added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch a single strategy's structure' and enumerates the specific contents (name, description, native timeframe, per-node summary), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by naming optimize_strategy as the downstream consumer and list_strategies for finding IDs.

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?

Explicitly warns 'Use this before optimize_strategy' and explains the exact relationship between node IDs/config field names and the xNodeId/xField parameters. It also mentions 'or to understand what a strategy actually does before editing it', providing clear when-to-use context and implicitly distinguishing from list_strategies.

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