wake_get

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

The description presents a pure retrieval operation ('Read one wake-up by id') while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the definition and the structured metadata disagree about whether calling it can mutate state. This is an annotation contradiction; the otherwise rich detail about delivery_method/delivered_by/socket_attempt_at does not resolve the conflict.

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 key differentiator (untruncated body, vs wake_list) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining bulk documents return fields that no output schema covers, so it largely earns its space. The delivery-state sentence is a dense run-on enumerating several fields, which slightly hurts readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the returned delivery state (delivery_method, delivered_by, socket_attempt_at, fire_count, delivered_by_note), which is the main completeness need. It does not cover failure behavior for a missing id or acknowledge any side effects, which is a residual gap.

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 50% (project_id documented, wake_id not). The description reinforces scope ('by id, in this project') but adds no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema, and does not touch the project-override rule that the schema already carries. Baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (Read), a specific resource (one wake-up by id), scope (in this project), and a distinguishing property (UNTRUNCATED body). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling wake_list, so an agent can route between them without opening either 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 states exactly when to use this over the alternative: wake_list truncates the body at 120 chars, so use this to see the full text or to verify what wake_update just changed. That is an explicit use-case plus a named alternative and the condition selecting it.

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