get_practice

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does communicate a read-only retrieval operation on a named document. However, it says nothing about return format, missing-name errors, or any constraints, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a tool without an output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the core operation without filler. Every word contributes to purpose.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the operation and key parameter. Its main gaps are the lack of a pointer to list_practices for valid names and no mention of the return payload, but the tool's simplicity limits the downside.

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 already describes the single 'name' parameter with examples at 100% coverage, so the description's reference to 'by name' adds little new meaning. This matches the baseline score for fully documented parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('DevOps practice document'), and the lookup method ('by name'). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_template or list_practices, so it relies on resource naming for differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_practices for discovering valid names or get_template for a different resource type. An agent can infer the use case from the name and schema, but the description does not state exclusions or fallback tools.

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