superset_annotation_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get an annotation by ID'—a direct restatement of the tool name—and adds no behavioral context such as error handling, permissions, or the need for both IDs. There is no discussion of what happens if the annotation is not found or whether the operation is read-only beyond the verb 'get'.

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 highly concise: one sentence for the purpose and a clean args list with brief definitions. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or unnecessary repetition. The structure is easy to scan for an agent.

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?

This is a simple getter with an existing output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description adequately explains the two required parameters and the purpose. However, it lacks broader context about when to use the tool, what the output represents, or any prerequisites beyond having the IDs. It is minimally complete but leaves room for improvement.

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 description provides one-line explanations for both parameters, which the input schema lacks entirely (schema description coverage is 0%). It clarifies that annotation_layer_id is the layer ID and annotation_id comes from annotation_list, offering useful context for obtaining valid values. While terse, this meaningfully compensates for the schema gap.

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 an annotation by ID') and identifies the resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like annotation_list (which lists annotations) and annotation_create/update/delete, though it does not explicitly contrast with them. The note 'from annotation_list' on the annotation_id parameter suggests a workflow, adding slight 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 only implied usage context: to get a single annotation, you need an annotation ID (obtained from annotation_list) and a layer ID. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The 'from annotation_list' hint gives some workflow guidance, but overall the usage guidance is minimal.

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