aureon_get_objective

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no behavior for an unknown or unauthorized ID, and no return-shape hint. For a single-item read tool this is low-risk, but the disclosure gap is real.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, nothing tells the agent what the returned objective looks like or whether the lookup can fail on authorization. Given the rich sibling set, a sentence on returns or failure modes would be expected.

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 100% for the single objectiveId parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'by ID' restates the schema rather than adding format, source, or validity details beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (a single objective) plus the key selector (by ID), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling aureon_list_objectives. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use context, no mention of the alternative list tool, and no prerequisites. The phrase 'by ID' hints that an ID must be known, but the agent is not told where to get one or when this is preferable to listing.

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