Show Recycled Injury

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by noting deprecated response keys (afflictions, affected_body_part) and specifying the API endpoint. No contradictions with annotations.

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 at ~4 sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing key details (deprecation, required params, API path). Every sentence adds value, though the note about 'Incidents' is slightly redundant.

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 description covers the main purpose and deprecation, but lacks details about optional parameters (page, per_page, incident_id) and the response structure beyond 'JSON object'. Without an output schema, more clarity on returned fields would be beneficial. The API path info is useful.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates required parameters (project_id, id) but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The deprecation note relates to response fields, not parameters. No additional semantic guidance is provided.

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 that the tool returns a specific Recycled Injury, and the verb 'Returns' plus the resource 'Recycled Injury' provide good purpose clarity. However, it confusingly also mentions 'Incidents' (likely a copy-paste error from a similar tool), which slightly detracts from clarity and may mislead about the resource type.

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 implies usage for fetching full details of a specific recycled injury by its identifier, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like show_injury or list_recycled_injuries. It provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist.

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