get_circle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does a credible job. It reveals a notable security guarantee (an identifier is NEVER returned, per SEC-PM-006) and explains the authentication prerequisite and its interaction with start_login. It could go further by detailing error behavior or explicitly confirming read-only semantics, but the provided behavioral context is meaningful.

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 compact and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose statement followed by an access/security note. Every sentence contributes essential information, with no repetition or filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what the response includes, the no-identifier guarantee, and the access prerequisites. It is largely complete for correct invocation, though a slightly clearer statement of what 'presence booleans' means or how errors surface would make it fully comprehensive.

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 covers the single parameter with a description ('Circle ID') and format pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'by ID' without adding extra meaning about the parameter's semantics, constraints, or usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Circle by ID') and clearly states what is returned: the Circle, its members, and per-member channel presence booleans. It also distinguishes itself by noting what is NEVER returned, making its scope unmistakable relative to siblings like list_circles or update_circle.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you have a specific Circle ID and need the Circle with members and presence data. It also gives explicit access guidance (requires a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, start_login does not unlock it). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, such as when listing circles is more appropriate.

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