get_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. As a get operation, the read-only nature is evident, but the description does not elaborate on error behaviors, required permissions, or what 'details' include. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not specify what 'details' means or how status is represented. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but lacks enrichment about return values or edge cases.

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?

The schema has no description for intent_id (0% coverage), but the description clarifies that the parameter refers to a previously submitted payment intent. This adds meaningful context beyond the naked schema, even though only one parameter exists and is self-explanatory.

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 retrieves status and details for a previously submitted payment intent, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('payment intent'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_intents by focusing on a single intent identified by id.

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 implies when to use (after submitting an intent) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. It does not reference sibling tools or exclusions, so context is only weakly conveyed.

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