Get a specific snippet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval action—it doesn't mention response format, error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), or any side effects. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is neutral but not enriching.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is redundant: 'Get a specific snippet' and 'Retrieves a specific snippet by its ID' essentially repeat the same information. A single sentence would have been more concise. The structure is acceptable but not optimal.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description provides the core information: what it does and the key parameter. It does not describe the return value or possible errors, but given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, this is a minor gap. The description is adequate but could be improved by noting that it returns the snippet object or that it may fail for nonexistent IDs.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explicitly states that the tool retrieves a snippet 'by its ID', giving the 'id' parameter clear semantic context. While it doesn't elaborate on the ID's format or uniqueness, for a single-parameter tool this is sufficient and adds value beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving a specific snippet by its ID. The verb 'get' and 'retrieve' with the resource 'specific snippet' make the action unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_all_snippets by specifying 'specific' and 'by its ID', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The redundancy in the two sentences slightly reduces clarity but the intent is clear.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this should be used when a snippet ID is known, or that get_all_snippets should be used for listing. While the name and schema imply ID-based retrieval, the description lacks any comparative or situational advice. Given the many sibling tools, this is a missed opportunity to guide selection.

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