get_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not mention what happens if the name is not found, whether the match is case-sensitive, or what the response contains. It is minimally transparent for a simple getter.

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 a single, focused sentence that fully communicates the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not rich. It explains what the tool does and the key parameter, but does not describe the return value or error behavior, which could be important for an agent to plan its next steps.

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 only provides 'name' as a required string. The description adds meaning by stating the name is the lookup key, which is essential for using the parameter correctly. However, it does not provide format details or boundary conditions.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('saved strategy'), and the selection criterion ('by its name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_strategies (which fetches multiple) and save_strategy/delete_strategy (which modify strategies).

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 the tool should be used when you need a specific saved strategy identified by a known name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear for a simple lookup tool.

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