get_idea

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context by saying the result includes full context, notes, and history, and 'Get' implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, not-found handling, or side effects.

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?

A single short sentence front-loads the action and resource with no redundant or filler text.

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 read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives a useful high-level summary of returned content. It still leaves out key call details such as identifier semantics, not-found behavior, and return structure.

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%, and the single required parameter 'id' is not described beyond type string. The description does not clarify what the ID identifies, its expected format, or where to obtain it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one idea') and adds scope with 'full context, notes and history.' It implicitly distinguishes singular retrieval from list/search siblings, but does not explicitly name alternatives or explain how it differs from update/delete siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_ideas, search_ideas, or update_idea. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the caller must already know the idea ID.

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