cdp_get_mailer_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'GET' operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or detail other behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get a mailer batch by id') and includes the API endpoint for context. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 low complexity (simple retrieval), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present (which likely describes return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage guidelines. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the description doesn't fully compensate for other gaps, making it just viable.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by id', which hints at the 'id' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain its format (e.g., string type, expected values) or mention the 'tenant_id' parameter at all. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 resource ('a mailer batch by id'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_list_mailer_batches' (which lists multiple batches) by focusing on retrieval of a single batch via ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools (e.g., 'cdp_get_mailer_account'), leaving some ambiguity in sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid batch ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or updating batches), or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'cdp_list_mailer_batches' for broader queries. Usage is implied only by the action 'Get', but no explicit context is given.

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