get_composer

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the exact return shape, including the works array structure and profile summary, and clarifies that the ID comes from the URL /persons/<ID>. No contradiction with annotations.

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, with a clear one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every part adds necessary information with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description provides the input format and a complete return shape, which is sufficient despite the absence of an output schema. It does not mention pagination or limits, but those are not strongly implied for this operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It does: composer_id is identified as the Pitina composer encyclopedia ID and tied to the URL /persons/<ID> number format, which is precise and actionable.

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 clearly states a specific verb (取得する/retrieve) and resource (profile summary and work list for a composer by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_composers and search_pieces by focusing on lookup by a known composer ID rather than search.

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 implies use when the caller already has a composer_id, especially given the URL pattern hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_composers or mention any alternative/exclusion conditions.

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