clio_get_matter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned ('full detail...including linked client and recent documents') but does not mention safety (read-only), potential errors, or response format. It adds some value but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Full detail for one matter') and includes specific, useful details without any wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately covers the core purpose and key return elements. It could mention how to obtain the matter id (e.g., via clio_find_matters), but that is not essential for a straightforward getter.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (id: 'Matter id') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('matter') with scope ('full detail') and explicitly mentions key contents (linked client, recent documents). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clio_find_matters, which are search/list operations.

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 'Full detail for one matter' implies it should be used when a single matter's complete details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like clio_find_matters, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the matter id). Usage guidance is 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.