get_assumption

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that overrides are applied, returns typed fields, exclusion predicate, override layer, and soft-deleted flag. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, authorization requirements, or potential errors. The disclosure is good but not comprehensive.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by behavioral context and return details. It is front-loaded and efficient, though minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 tool is a simple get-by-id operation and an output schema exists, the description covers all essential aspects: the merge logic, return fields, and special handling of soft-deleted entities. It is complete for an agent to understand 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 description coverage is 67%, with model_id and assumption_id already described. The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond the schema, such as format hints or context for server_version. Since schema does most of the work, 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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single assumption', and distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_assumptions' by noting it mirrors the merge logic for one entity. The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 hints at usage by mentioning it mirrors list_assumptions' logic, implying use when a single assumption is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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