Show Contributing Behavior

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of returning a JSON object and the GET endpoint adds little beyond what annotations provide. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements or rate limits. With strong annotations, no contradiction, but no extra value.

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 fairly concise with two main sentences. It includes the endpoint and API section, which may be useful but adds length. Could be slightly more succinct without the API detail, but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It states 'Returns a JSON object' but refers to 'Incidents' incorrectly. It does not describe the structure or optional pagination parameters (page, per_page). This leaves significant gaps for an agent, making it incomplete.

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 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description repeats required parameters but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly states it returns details for a specified Contributing Behavior using an identifier. The verb 'returns' and 'fetch' are specific. However, it incorrectly mentions 'Incidents' instead of 'Contributing Behavior', causing minor confusion. It distinguishes from list tools by requiring an ID.

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 advises using this tool to fetch full details by ID, which provides usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'list_contributing_behaviors' for listing. Some implied guidance exists but lacks explicit exclusions.

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