scf_get_journey

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavior: it explicitly states 'Never writes', names the viewer role requirement, notes preconditions are evaluated, and discloses that an org without a journey receives a default-template preview. This gives an agent clear expectations without contradicting 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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important non-writing behavior plus preview fallback are packed into the second sentence. Every clause 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 one-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned in concept (guided journey with preconditions), the authorization context, and the no-journey fallback. An agent has enough to decide to call it and know what to expect.

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 single parameter org_id already includes a useful description ('Organization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations'). The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond connecting org_id to 'the organization's journey', 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('the organization's guided journey') and the action ('Get'), and distinguishes it from siblings like scf_list_journey_templates by emphasizing the org-specific staged path rather than the template library. The preview-fallback clause further sharpens what this tool returns.

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 clear context: this is the read-only way to read the org's journey, appropriate for a viewer-role caller, and explains the fallback when no journey exists. It lacks an explicit exclusion such as 'for templates use list_journey_templates', so it stops short of a 5.

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