get_assistant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's negative clause ('does not create, install, publish, or modify') reinforces that but adds no genuinely new behavior such as auth requirements, caching, or output shape.

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 short sentences, the positive purpose front-loaded and the negative disambiguation second. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 read-only, idempotent two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers what the tool is and is not. The remaining gap is that the returned blueprint's structure is only vaguely characterized, which matters since there is no output schema to document it.

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% and the enum for target is fully documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description echoes the host-format concept ('formatted for a selected host') but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond what is already present.

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 and resource ('Return one bundled assistant blueprint') and names the target dimension, so the agent knows it produces a host-formatted artifact rather than a listing. It is less explicit about how it differs from the sibling render_prompt, which is the only real ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single assistant blueprint by id for a given host. No statement of when to prefer this over render_prompt or list_prompts, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the id must come from list_prompts — that hint lives in the schema, not the description).

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