accelo_get_enum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: that only a subset of (object, enum_type) combinations support get-by-id, and that unsupported combinations return a structured error listing valid pairs. It omits return shape and auth/rate-limit details.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the important caveat about partial endpoint coverage before the Args block. The prose is efficient; the Args list is conventional and adds marginal redundancy but is not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, the failure mode, and all parameters, and cross-references the sibling list tool. A brief note on what an enumeration value response contains would close the remaining gap.

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, and it does: it documents all four parameters including examples for object ('issues') and enum_type ('statuses'), the meaning of id, and the role of fields. Lacks detail on fields syntax/format.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single enumeration value by ID') with a concrete example ('one issue status'). This cleanly distinguishes it from accelo_list_enum, which is named as the plural counterpart.

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?

Explains when this tool is applicable (only some enumerations expose a get-by-id endpoint) and what happens otherwise (structured error naming valid combinations), plus it points to accelo_list_enum for the full list. It stops short of an explicit 'use this vs. list' decision rule, but the context is clear.

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