Get Legacy Bot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses auth requirements (app-token vs B2B with explicit appId), error semantics (401/403 wrong auth, 404 unknown appId), and the legacy-vs-API-created app distinction. It doesn't describe pagination or return format, but for a single-resource read with no output schema, the disclosed behavior is strong.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose and resource are in the first sentence, followed by a terse prerequisite, an alternative route, auth/error notes, and a related tool. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, auth modes, error conditions, the legacy-vs-new distinction, and the related update tool. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because the description enumerates the returned fields. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single appId parameter well. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains when appId is required (B2B mode), when it is ignored (app-token mode), and how it relates to ethora-app-select. This goes beyond the schema's own description and helps an agent decide whether to pass the parameter.

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 verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('current AI bot configuration for an app'), then enumerates the exact fields returned (status, trigger, prompt, greeting, LLM provider/model, RAG settings, widget config). It also distinguishes itself from the ethora-agents-* family by explicitly naming the legacy per-app aiBot scope, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it applies only to apps with a legacy dashboard-created aiBot, and it explicitly routes API-created apps to the alternative sequence (ethora-agents-create-v2 -> ethora-agent-invite-to-chat -> ethora-agents-activate-v2). It also states auth modes (app-token or B2B with explicit appId) and names the related update tool (ethora-bot-update-v2). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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