get_behavior

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only and non-destructive (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns the source of a saved behavior, which is mildly informative, but it does not disclose what happens when the named behavior does not exist or what form the returned source takes. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation but not deeply transparent.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the input and what is returned. However, with no output schema, the description could clarify the format or nature of the returned source, and could mention the behavior-not-found case. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the required 'name' parameter. The description only says 'a saved behavior' without explicitly connecting the 'name' parameter to the behavior identifier, though that connection is reasonably inferable. The tool's single parameter is simple, but the description does not fully compensate for the absence of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('the source of a saved behavior'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_behavior and list_behaviors by focusing on retrieving source rather than executing or listing behaviors. However, 'source' could be more explicitly defined, and the description does not explicitly contrast it with siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of list_behaviors for enumerating behaviors, run_behavior for executing one, or validate_behavior for checking one. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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