get-global-option-set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It simply says 'Get', indicating a read operation, but does not mention potential errors, permissions, return format, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the obvious read-only nature.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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 getter with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states the tool's purpose and input. While it could mention return details or failure behavior, the low complexity makes this a minor gap, so it earns a 4 rather than 3.

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 single parameter optionSetName has 100% schema description coverage ('The name of the global option set'). The description's 'by name' aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a global option set definition by name' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (global option set definition), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get-entity-metadata and get-record. It is unambiguous and directly conveys the tool's function.

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?

Usage context is implied by the resource name and sibling tools (e.g., this is for option sets, not entity metadata or records), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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