get_hitl

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the auth-dependent access requirement and restart workflow, and states what the response includes. It does not explicitly say the tool is read-only, but 'Get' and the return-value phrasing make the non-destructive nature reasonably clear.

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 two tight sentences: the first states purpose and return contents, the second provides the access prerequisite. No filler or repeated schema information, and the key behavior 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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, return contents, and the unusual API-key setup prerequisite. It could be slightly stronger by naming list_hitls as the alternative for browsing configs, but that omission is minor given the low complexity.

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 already documents the only parameter (id) with the description 'HITL config ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little beyond the contextual phrase 'by ID', which matches the schema; baseline 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get a HITL config by ID.' It also clarifies what the config contains ('channels, timeout, and status'), and the 'by ID' framing distinguishes this from list_hitls, which retrieves configs in bulk.

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 useful usage context: a proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and 'start_login does NOT open this tool.' This is a clear when-not, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_hitls or state when to use get_hitl versus listing configs, so it is not full 5-level guidance.

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