get_matter_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is consistent with the tool's purpose. However, it does not mention any additional behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the response (e.g., single object vs. empty result if not found).

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 very concise—single sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and target. However, it could be slightly expanded with one or two more details without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has only one required parameter and an output schema (not provided in the prompt). The description is minimal but perhaps adequate for a straightforward get-by-ID operation. However, it lacks context about typical use cases, related tools, or error handling, reducing completeness for an AI agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' but does not explain that matter_type_id is a unique identifier, how to obtain valid values (e.g., from list_matter_types), or any constraints (e.g., length, format). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field name and type.

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 'Get a matter type by ID.' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('matter type'). It specifies the retrieval method (by ID), distinguishing it from listing operations like list_matter_types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools for related entities (e.g., get_matter, get_matter_stage).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like list_matter_types (for multiple matter types) or get_matter (for matter details). It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid matter_type_id from a previous query.

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