Show Commitment Change Order Line Item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and return type (JSON object), which aligns with the annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or permission requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 five sentences covering purpose, usage, return type, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, there is some redundancy (mentioning 'Commitments' twice with inconsistent capitalization) and the phrase 'full details of a specific Commitments' could be clearer.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description provides the core information: what it does, required parameters, and the API endpoint. It mentions the return type (JSON object) but does not specify that it returns a single line item object, which could be inferred. Optional parameters are not mentioned but are covered in the schema. The description is generally complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description only repeats the required parameters without adding new meaning. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters (page, per_page) or provide usage context beyond the 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 purpose is clear: 'Get a specified line item for a given commitment change order.' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (line item), and context (commitment change order). However, the description later refers to 'a specific Commitments' which is slightly inconsistent and could cause confusion with the commitment itself.

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 description states 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Commitments by its identifier.' This gives a usage context but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_commitment_change_order_line_items' (for listing all line items) or 'show_commitment_change_order' (for the order itself). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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