get_import_error

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about behavior: not whether the call is read-only-safe, what happens when the id does not exist, nor any permission requirements. Only the bare retrieval action is described.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the parameter note is short. The "[Tool Role]:" prefix and "Args:" boilerplate add slight overhead but nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are present and the parameter's origin is explained. Missing behavioral notes (not-found handling, auth) leave it adequate but not complete given zero annotation coverage.

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%, but the description compensates partially by explaining that import_error_id is a numeric identifier of a DAG import error, telling the agent where to obtain the value. It stops short of format details or examples.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Retrieves a specific import error") and the singular "specific" implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_import_errors. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not name the list sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_import_errors or all_dag_import_summary; the agent must infer it from the word "specific" and the id parameter. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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