get_thesis

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 states the basic fetch action, omitting details like caching, rate limits, data freshness, or whether the thesis is from a research team or user-generated. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but minimal.

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?

A single sentence of 6 words is highly concise. It immediately states the action, object, and key parameter. No wasted words.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple fetch with one parameter, but it lacks details about the return value (structure, fields) and what a trade thesis comprises. Given the absence of an output schema, the agent has no clue about the response format, which could hinder correct downstream use.

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 mentions the sole parameter 'slug' and explains its role as the identifier. This adds a little context beyond the schema (which only has a title and validation). However, the schema coverage is 0% (description doesn't list parameters explicitly), so the description compensates minimally.

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 ('Fetch') and the resource ('specific trade thesis') with the lookup key ('by slug'). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_theses' which lists all theses. However, it doesn't define 'trade thesis,' which could be ambiguous to an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'list_theses' or other fetch tools. The agent is not told that this is for retrieving a single thesis when the slug is known, while 'list_theses' is for browsing all available theses.

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