Get assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond that - the required auth scope and the fact that it surfaces workflowRunId - but says nothing about error behavior for unknown pids or how status transitions appear.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the returned-field information is front-loaded before the permission note. Nothing is wasted.

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 low-complexity single-parameter read tool with a complete schema this is close to adequate, and it hints at return contents despite no output schema. But in a sibling cluster of five or more assessment-getting tools, the description omits the disambiguation an agent most needs.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Assessment pid (pasm_*)'), so the schema fully documents it and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, prefix, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get assessment detail') and names two concrete returned fields (status, workflowRunId). However, it does not differentiate itself from the many similarly named siblings such as air_get_assessment_summary, air_get_assessment_report, and air_get_assessment_stages, leaving the agent to guess which 'get assessment*' variant it needs.

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 only guidance is a permission prerequisite ('Requires assessments:read'). There is no statement of when to use this tool over air_list_assessments, air_get_assessment_summary, or air_wait_for_assessment, and no exclusion guidance. Prerequisite alone is not usage routing.

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