Describe a ChurchTools API operation

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses two concrete behavioral limits: schemas are truncated below depth 4 and answers are capped at 20,000 characters. These are real operational constraints an agent needs when interpreting results. It still does not describe the response shape or error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose leads, and the truncation caveats follow compactly in the same breath. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it does ('parameters and the request body schema'), including the truncation limits. What is missing is any note on the response format or how the two inputs map to the returned document, but for a two-required-param introspection tool it is largely complete.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that 'path' is listed by ct_search_api and that 'method' is the HTTP verb. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Shows') and resource ('parameters and the request body schema of one ChurchTools API operation'), leaving no ambiguity about what it returns. It is implicitly distinct from ct_search_api (which lists operations) because it targets 'one' operation, but the description itself never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage must be inferred: an agent can figure out this is the detail-lookup counterpart to ct_search_api, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or that ct_search_api should be used first to find a path. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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