wake_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It surfaces the non-obvious untruncated-body behavior and the project scope. It does not spell out error behavior or return shape, but for a simple read the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, with the core behavior front-loaded and the trade-off against wake_list in the second sentence. No filler.

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 low-complexity getter with one required parameter, the agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly: the id, project scoping, and why the untruncated body matters. Omitted response-shape details are not blocking given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema already documents project_id thoroughly; the description adds only that wake_id identifies the wake, which is thin for the one required parameter. At 50% schema coverage, a stronger description of wake_id (e.g., where to obtain it) would help.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Read one wake-up by id, in this project, with its UNTRUNCATED body.' It also distinguishes itself from wake_list by naming the truncation difference, so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

It explicitly names wake_list as the alternative and gives two concrete trigger conditions: seeing exactly what a wake will say, and confirming a wake_update change. This is direct when-to-use guidance.

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