accelo_get_signoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about permissions, whether the signoff must exist, error behavior for a bad ID, or what the fields parameter does to the payload.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The Arg list is terse but not padded, though it is largely redundant with the schema.

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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what a signoff record contains, ID acquisition context, and the effect of the fields parameter, leaving gaps an agent would need to probe.

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 for both parameters. It only restates them ('id: Signoff ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return') without format, scope, or accepted values for fields, adding essentially nothing beyond the schema titles.

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+resource: retrieve a single signoff by ID. An agent can tell it fetches one record rather than a list, but the description gives no explicit differentiation from nearby siblings like accelo_list_signoffs, accelo_update_signoff, or accelo_redraft_signoff.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative selection. The agent gets no cue about when this single-record fetch is preferable to accelo_list_signoffs or how the ID is obtained.

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