ecn_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns both structured metadata and full markdown body, and mentions a CLI alternative. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond the read operation.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then describes return content, and ends with a practical CLI hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and full schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It mentions both structured metadata and markdown body. However, it lacks context about error handling or prerequisites, which would be helpful for a get-by-ID tool.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves the full content of a specific ECN by ID, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecn_create, ecn_list, ecn_update, etc., by focusing on retrieval of a single ECN's full content.

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 a hint for local projects using the CLI, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecn_list or ecn_get from other contexts. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance.

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