kaiten_get_automation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does a good job by disclosing the endpoint's possible 405 failure. It could also state what a 405 means for handling the result, but the warning is strong, specific, and actionable.

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 sentences with no filler. The core operation is stated first, then the critical caveat and fallback are placed immediately after, which is the optimal front-loaded structure for agent decision-making.

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 definition is complete for a simple two-parameter GET tool: it identifies the resource, names required parameters through the schema, and warns about the likely failure mode with a clear fallback. It does not describe the return shape, but with no output schema defined, a brief note on what the response contains could add small value; however, for a simple retrieval the missing return description is not a major gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description itself does not add deeper semantic meaning about space_id or automation_id formats beyond the schema, but the schema provides sufficient meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific automation in a Kaiten space'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from kaiten_list_automations by naming that sibling as the recommended alternative when the GET-by-ID approach may fail.

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 explicitly says GET by ID may return 405 and advises using kaiten_list_automations with client-side filtering. This is a concrete when-to-use-this-tool vs alternative condition, giving the agent actionable routing guidance beyond basic context.

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