get_custom_pixel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, which adds some transparency, but it does not disclose any behavior beyond that, such as return format or potential errors. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple getter.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

For a simple single-id fetch with one parameter, the description is adequately complete: it states the action, target, and scoping. It omits explicit return details, but this is not critical given the simplicity and lack of output schema.

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% (the 'id' parameter already includes a detailed example). The description only repeats 'by ID' without adding new meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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 ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('specific custom pixel') and scope ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_custom_pixels (plural) and get_pixel, which are list/other-purpose 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 'by ID' clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single known pixel, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_custom_pixels to list all'), so it stops short of a 5.

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