getAutomationPerson

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not reveal any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID does not exist), whether authentication is required, or whether it is a safe read operation. This minimal description lacks context beyond the literal function.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place.

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—one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects—the description is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not explain what an 'automation-person entry' is, but the sibling tool names (e.g., addPersonToAutomation, listAutomationsPeople) provide context. A brief note about return behavior or non-existence handling could enhance completeness, but it is not strictly necessary for such a straightforward operation.

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 input schema already provides a description for the 'id' parameter ('AutomationPerson ID') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the lookup is by ID. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 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 explicitly states 'Get an automation-person entry by ID', which uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('automation-person entry'), and specifies the access method ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like listAutomationsPeople (listing) and addPersonToAutomation/updateAutomationPerson (mutations).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. The parameter requirement ('by ID') implies it is for fetching a single specific record, contrasting with listing tools, but this is implied rather than stated. No exclusions or explicit guidance are provided.

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