athena_retrieval_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the contents of the receipt but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how it behaves if run_id is invalid, or any side effects. The 'Fetch' verb implies a safe read, but this is not made explicit, and no error or response format details are provided.

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 with no filler. Every component adds value—specifying the resource, its persistence, and the detailed contents. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently lists the receipt components.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), and the description lists the receipt contents, which is useful. However, it does not explain what a RAGRUN receipt is, how to obtain a run_id, or any failure behavior. For an agent in this complex domain, this leaves some ambiguity but remains minimally workable.

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 0%, and the single parameter run_id is not mentioned in the description. The description does not explain how run_id maps to a receipt, what format it should be, or any constraints beyond the schema's basic type/minLength. The description fails to compensate for the low 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 description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one persisted RAGRUN receipt') and enumerates the exact contents (query/candidate/EQ input, selected sources, coverage, solver/optimality, decision digest). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like athena_retrieval_compile or athena_retrieval_recent, which imply other operations.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single receipt by its persisted nature and exact contents, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like athena_retrieval_recent or athena_retrieval_replay. It provides clear context (it's a get-by-id fetch) but lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.

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