get_mission_details

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

The description confirms the readOnly and openWorld behavior from annotations by stating it 'get details' and 'click on a conversation' (suggesting dynamic lookup). It adds context about the extracted fields but no further behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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 with no superfluous content. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second details what is extracted. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the one required parameter and presence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It could mention dependency on an active session (given sibling authenticate and close_session), but that is not a critical gap.

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 parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema). The description repeats the schema info (matches case-insensitive, conversation titles) without adding new semantics, so baseline 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 the verb 'get' and resource 'details of a specific mission conversation', and enumerates the extracted fields (title, description, preferences, skills, message history), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_missions (listing) and get_profile.

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 implies when to use (need details of a specific mission by name) and hints at the matching mechanism (case-insensitive against conversation titles). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools for different scenarios, such as get_missions for browsing.

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