retrieve_initiative

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the ID-based retrieval scope, but does not enrich behavioral understanding beyond annotations, leaving out aspects like error handling or response format.

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?

A single, grammatically complete sentence of five words. There is no redundancy or filler, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 read-by-ID operation, the description is functionally adequate: it states the action, target, and how to identify the resource. Yet, with no output schema and no mention of return values or error behavior, it leaves gaps for an agent that might require knowledge of the response structure. The simplicity of the tool partially offsets this but not entirely.

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?

The schema provides zero description for the only parameter 'initiative_id'. The description's 'by ID' directly ties this parameter to the retrieval action, giving some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not elaborate on format or constraints, barely compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 combines a specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'initiative' and a clear identifier 'by ID', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_initiatives' (which retrieves multiple) and other retrieve_* tools by specifying 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: use this when you have an initiative ID and need the full resource. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like 'list_initiatives' or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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