Get Procedure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond those: the 404 identical response for missing vs unrouted paths and the fact that ids are not guessable. It also explains that 'procedure' is called 'Process' in the UI. This adds behavior/terminology context that annotations do not capture.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a brief conceptual definition and a single usage-guidance sentence. Every sentence adds value; no filler. It is compact despite covering terminology and error behavior.

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 fetch-by-id tool, the description covers the key elements: what it returns conceptually (ordered checklist with completion count), how to obtain the id (via list), and the ambiguous 404 behavior. It omits a detailed return schema, but no output schema is provided and the tool is read-only, so this is acceptable. The description is well-suited to the tool's complexity.

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%, with 'id' described as 'Numeric Hudu id of the procedure' and 'response_format' fully documented with enum and default. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond restating 'numeric id' and the conceptual definition. Therefore the 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?

The description opens with 'Fetch one procedure by its numeric id,' a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with hudu_list_procedures (for name-based lookup) and clarifies the Hudu/Process terminology. This clearly identifies the tool's function among many related list/get/update/archive tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use hudu_list_procedures first if you only know a name,' and explains why (ids are not guessable, 404 ambiguity). This gives a clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative directive. Also labels 'Operation class: Read' to set expectations.

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