get_detail

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose a pagination contract – the response is segmented and 'json_segment' must be concatenated via 'next_offset' – but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or the relationship between the 'offset' input and 'next_offset' output.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval/pagination mechanic and no filler. It is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: 'count'/'offset' semantics are absent, the output shape is only hinted at via field names not present in any schema, and 'revision as id' is not reconcilable with the integer 'id' property without guessing.

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% across 4 parameters. The description clarifies 'id' (pass the revision) and 'kind' (use 'event' for stable task reads), but 'count' and 'offset' are left entirely unexplained, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Retrieve' is specific, but the resource is described only as 'complete JSON' – it never says it returns a project, task, or event record even though 'kind' enumerates exactly those. The agent must infer the resource from the parameter enum rather than the prose.

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 gives one concrete routing rule ('For stable task reads use kind=event and revision as id'), which is real when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative among siblings such as project_view or changes and states no when-not-to-use conditions.

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