scf_get_window_assessment

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing exactly what the response contains: window bounds, frequency, file IDs, coverage, status, findings, hashes, tokens, and cost. It does not disclose edge-case behaviors, but for a read-only get-by-ID tool this is a minor gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and target, then finishes with a compact list of return fields. Every part earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 get-by-ID tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It names the return fields and specifies how to obtain both required IDs, so an agent can select and invoke the tool confidently.

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%, and both parameter descriptions already tell the caller where to get valid UUIDs from scf_list_organizations and scf_list_window_assessments. The description itself adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one windowed AI assessment by ID.' It clearly indicates the operation is a single-item lookup and differentiates itself from list- or summary-style siblings by promising 'full detail' and enumerating the returned fields.

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 makes clear this is the by-ID lookup tool and tells the caller where to obtain the required assessment_id via scf_list_window_assessments. It does not explicitly say when to prefer summary or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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