pulse_routine_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden; "Read" does correctly signal a non-mutating lookup. However, it says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids, what a "routine candidate" payload contains, or whether the saved routine is live or draft.

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?

One short sentence with the lookup key front and center; nothing is wasted. The terseness borders on under-specification, which is captured in other dimensions.

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?

A simple single-parameter getter without an output schema needs little, but the description never explains what a "routine candidate" is or how to obtain a valid routine_id, both of which an agent needs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. "by id" does map onto the sole routine_id parameter, but gives no format, source, or default guidance beyond that.

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?

"Read a saved routine candidate by id" gives a specific verb (read), resource (routine candidate), and key (id). It implicitly contrasts with pulse_routine_save and pulse_routine_list, but never names them, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus pulse_routine_list (to find an id) or pulse_routine_save (to persist one). The agent must infer from the one-liner that this is a follow-up fetch after listing.

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