get_functional_objective

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects' and describes what information is reported (capability, condition, current test state), which is valuable transparency beyond the schema.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place: what it returns, the read-only nature, and how to get the ID. No fluff or repetition.

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's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and strong sibling context, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, that it is safe, what it reports, and how to obtain the required ID, leaving no critical gaps.

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%: model_id and functional_objective_id are documented in the schema, while server_version is not. The description adds meaningful context for functional_objective_id by indicating it comes from list_functional_objectives, but does not explain server_version, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 'Get' with the resource 'functional objective' and clarifies the included Given-When-Then statement, making the tool's scope clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_functional_objectives by explicitly noting this fetches one item, not all.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: with a functional_objective_id from list_functional_objectives. It also names the alternative tool for enumerating all objectives, providing clear usage guidance and differentiation from siblings.

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