clawdate_match_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only implies read-only ('View'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Minimal transparency.

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?

Description is very concise (one phrase), but lacks structure. It is not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices useful detail. Every sentence should add value; here there is only one sentence that is adequate but not enriched.

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?

Given no output schema, one simple parameter, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what details are returned, potential errors, or prerequisites, leaving an agent underinformed for reliable invocation.

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 100% (only one parameter), but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'Match ID' label. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'View' and resource 'details of a specific match', avoiding tautology. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like clawdate_match_accept or clawdate_match_connect, which would also involve a specific match.

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 alternatives. For example, clawdate_matches lists all matches, while this views one, but this distinction is not mentioned. No exclusions or context provided.

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