get_mitigation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a retrieval and that the result is markdown-formatted, which adds some value. However, it does not state whether there are side effects, error behavior, or permissions needed.

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 relatively concise and well-structured with Args/Returns sections. There is minor redundancy between the first sentence and the second sentence, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the purpose, the parameter, and the return format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. It is adequate, though it omits error cases.

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 description must compensate. It explains that 'id' is the ID of the mitigation to retrieve, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. It also mentions 'ctx' for logging, though this is implementation detail.

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 it retrieves details about a specific mitigation, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_mitigations, add_mitigation, and delete_mitigation by focusing on a single entity 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 context is clear: use this when you need details for a specific mitigation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_mitigations or provide exclusions, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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