get_assumption

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return is a markdown-formatted description, which is useful. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling for missing IDs, but these are implied for a getter. The mention of a non-schema 'ctx' argument adds minor confusion, slightly reducing transparency.

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 a one-line summary, Args, and Returns sections. The id description is redundant with the schema, and the ctx line is unnecessary, adding minor bloat. Still, it is front-loaded with the main purpose and reads clearly.

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 getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose, the parameter, and the return format. It does not explain error scenarios or how to obtain IDs, but these are adequately covered by sibling tools like list_assumptions. The output schema further covers return structure.

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 documents the only parameter, id, with the exact same description. The description adds no new semantic information for id. Worse, it lists 'ctx' as an argument, which is not present in the schema, potentially misleading the agent into passing an unsupported parameter. This confusion outweighs the neutral baseline from high 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 opens with a clear verb-object statement: 'Get details about a specific assumption.' This unambiguously identifies a retrieval operation for a single assumption, distinguishing it from siblings like list_assumptions (list all) and add/update/delete operations. The return format is also mentioned, further clarifying the purpose.

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 phrase 'specific assumption' implies the tool is for retrieving a single item by ID, which is clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_assumptions for finding IDs or update_assumption for modifying. For a simple CRUD getter, this is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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