get_manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' without elaborating on any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), authorization requirements, side effects (none, but not stated explicitly), or whether the response contains all fields or a subset. This is a significant gap for a fetch operation.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information and is immediately parseable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention what 'details' entails (e.g., which manager fields are returned) or any error behavior. While a simple get-by-id tool may not need extensive documentation, the lack of output schema and annotations increases the need for more context to fully prepare the agent for the response and potential failures.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which already has a clear description ('Manager ID'). The description's phrase 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema handles parameter documentation, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate with additional context like ID format or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('details of a specific manager') with a clear access method ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_managers, which retrieves all managers, and create_manager/update_manager/delete_manager, which perform other 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 usage is implied: the user should have a specific manager ID and want its full details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of list_managers (e.g., to find an ID) or that get_manager is the read-only counterpart to update_manager/delete_manager. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative mentioned, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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