get_mural

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get details' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the mural ID is invalid, or any access/authorization requirements. This is a significant gap for a read operation that could benefit from confirming no side effects or data modification.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear purpose statement followed by a param explanation. Every sentence is necessary and there is no fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the action, making it easy to scan.

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, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential information: what it returns and the argument format. However, it could be more complete by noting that this is a read-only operation and possibly referencing related tools (e.g., 'use list_murals_in_room to find mural IDs') to improve contextual awareness.

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 input schema has no description for 'mural_id' (0% schema coverage), but the description compensates by explaining the exact format ('workspaceId.timestamp') and providing a concrete example. This adds meaningful semantic clarity that enables correct invocation, though it could be slightly more descriptive about what the ID represents in the system.

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 details') and the resource ('a single mural'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_murals_in_room' and 'get_mural_widgets'. The scope ('single mural') is explicit, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when retrieving a specific mural's details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing murals first) or mention any exclusions. While the context of sibling tools provides some guidance, the description itself offers no direct comparison or selection criteria.

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