bookshelf_get_config_development_by_id

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description does not contradict this and adds minimal context—just restating what the tool does. No further behavioral details (e.g., error handling, response format) are provided.

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, well-structured sentence that communicates the essential action and target. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary wording.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, readOnly annotation, and an output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it assumes background knowledge of what 'config development' means, which could be clarified in a more expansive description.

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 input schema lists only an integer 'id' parameter with no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description says 'by id,' which merely echoes the parameter name without explaining what the id refers to or how it should be obtained, thus adding little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Fetch'), the resource ('config development'), and the scoping ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on collections like bookshelf_get_config_development.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as bookshelf_get_config_development. The only implied context is that it fetches a single item by id, but this is not spelled out as a recommendation or exclusion.

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