Show Company WBS Segment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as returning a JSON object and specifying the HTTP method. Given the annotations, the description does not need to repeat safety information, but it provides some added 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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, usage, and API details. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 read tool with good annotations and a complete schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the return format (JSON object) and required parameters. However, it does not clarify the optional parameters (segment_item_list_id, page, per_page) or explain pagination, which could leave ambiguity for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description mentions the required parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No additional insights into parameters like segment_item_list_id, page, or per_page are given.

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 explicitly states 'fetch the full details of a specific Work Breakdown Structure records by its identifier.' The verb 'fetch' is specific, the resource is clear, and it distinguishes this from sibling tools that list or create segments.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: to fetch details of a specific segment by identifier. It lists required parameters (company_id, id), providing context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like list_company_wbs_segments.

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