clio_get_communication

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool returns 'full detail' for a single communication, implying a read-only, single-record operation. Yet it omits permissions, error behavior, or rate limits, providing only minimal context beyond the name.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It effectively conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse.

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 one-parameter get tool, the description is minimally adequate, stating it fetches full details for one communication. However, without an output schema, it does not specify what 'full detail' entails, and it offers no guidance on when to use this over the find tool, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has only an 'id' field with no description (0% coverage). The description adds no meaning about the id parameter—it does not explain the id format, how to obtain it, or that it refers to a unique communication. This fails to compensate for the bare schema.

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 specifies the resource ('communication') and scope ('one'), with 'full detail' indicating comprehensive retrieval. It distinguishes from siblings like clio_find_communications (search) and clio_log_communication (log), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get'.

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 phrase 'one communication' implies this tool is for retrieving a specific communication by ID, as opposed to searching via clio_find_communications. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it or name alternatives, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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