get_agenda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the return format ('A dictionary with agenda details and tasks'), which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., agenda not found), permissions, or side effects, though the 'get' wording implies a read-only 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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential return value and parameter. It does not discuss error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for other operations, the context is sufficiently complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the parameter: 'agenda_id: The ID of the agenda to retrieve'. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type, compensating for the lack of schema-level description.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'agenda', with explicit mention of including tasks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agendas (which lists all) and search_agendas (which searches), as it targets a specific agenda by ID.

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: use when you need detailed information about a specific agenda by its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. The distinction from list_agendas/search_agendas is implicit but not stated.

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