get_suggestion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content in detail (stance-tagged arguments, conditional verdict) and 'Fetch' implies read-only. It does not mention error cases or explicit safety guarantees, but for a simple getter it provides meaningful contextual behavior beyond a bare '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 entire description is a single efficiently worded sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then appends the distinguishing payload details. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the unique return components and the conditional nature of the verdict. Minor omissions like not-found behavior or explicit read-only status are acceptable given the simplicity and the 'Fetch' verb.

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 coverage is 0%, but there is only one required integer 'id'. The description implies the id is the identifier of the suggestion, but it never explicitly says 'by id' or explains the positive integer constraint. The parameter is simple and inferable, so this is not a severe gap, but the description adds little beyond what the schema already shows.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('one improvement suggestion'), and describes the payload ('full debate thread... ferryman's verdict if decided'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_suggestions or discuss_suggestion, which either return collections or add to the thread.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you need a single suggestion and its complete debate thread. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_suggestions or discuss_suggestion, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit.

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