get_tool

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds useful context about the identifier types (id, number, exact name) and the 'active-operation tool' scope, which is beyond structured data. However, it does not describe error behavior, output format, or any limits, which would have added more transparency.

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 one concise sentence of 13 words. It leads with the verb and resource, then states the lookup modes. There is no padding or repetition; every word adds value.

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 safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. The main gaps are the ambiguous term 'referenced' and no clarification of what an 'active-operation tool' is or behavior on a not-found lookup. For a single-parameter retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter's meaning, and it does. It says 'toolId' can be an id, number, or exact name, giving semantic context beyond the raw string/integer union in the schema. This is a meaningful compensation for a single-parameter tool, though it could be more specific about domain identifier formats.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one referenced active-operation tool', distinguishing it from list_tools (which lists tools) and get_operation (which deals with operations). It also specifies the lookup keys (id, number, exact name), making the purpose concrete. The term 'referenced active-operation' is slightly ambiguous, but for a domain-aware agent the intent is clear.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tools or find_operations. It implies a single-tool lookup, but it does not state when to choose it over a list or search tool, and no sibling tools are referenced. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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