Retrieve a suggestion by ID, including evidence sources and proposed changes, to audit or manage Hex workspaces.
Get a suggestion including evidence sources and proposed changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suggestionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read of a specific entity but says nothing about authorization needs, behavior when suggestionId is unknown, or whether the payload is stable/cached.
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 tight sentence with the noun and payload front-loaded; no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the missing usage and parameter info.
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 simple one-parameter read with no output schema, the description at least hints at the return content, but with no annotations and no error/failure behavior stated, it is only minimally adequate.
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% and the description says nothing about suggestionId — no format, source, or where to obtain the value. The phrase about evidence sources and proposed changes describes the return payload, not the input.
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?
Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('a suggestion') with a brief indication of payload ('evidence sources and proposed changes'). It is distinguishable from siblings like hex-list-suggestions (plural list) and hex-update-suggestion (mutation), though it never explicitly names them.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (list vs. update). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.