get_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at segmented retrieval and concatenation, but it does so using terms not present in the schema (next_offset, json_segment) and contradicts the schema's kind enum by recommending kind=event. It omits authentication, error behavior, pagination boundaries, and side effects.

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 short and front-loads the retrieval/pagination idea, which is good structurally. However, the second sentence is misleading and references incompatible schema terms, so the brevity does not translate into useful clarity.

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?

This is a four-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should clarify inputs and expected output. It gives only a fragmented pagination hint and uses names that don't match the schema, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly with confidence.

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 all four parameters. Instead it mentions kind=event (invalid per enum), revision as id (id is an integer), and next_offset/json_segment (not schema parameters), while never explaining id, kind=message, count, or offset semantics.

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 gives a specific action ('Retrieve complete JSON in segments'), but the resource is only vaguely identified as JSON, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_messages or post_message. The later reference to kind=event is impossible under the schema's enum, which only allows 'message', creating ambiguity about what is actually retrieved.

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?

It offers one usage scenario ('For stable task reads use kind=event and revision as id'), but that scenario references values/parameters that the schema does not support (kind enum is only 'message', id is an integer not 'revision'). No alternatives among sibling tools are mentioned, and no conditions for using this tool versus list_messages are provided.

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