Get Automation Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes all steps and settings, but does not disclose return shape, missing-ID behavior, or other quirks. That is acceptable but minimal.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no redundant filler. The phrase 'including all steps and settings' earns its place by specifying output scope.

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 required parameter and safety annotations, the description plus schema covers the essentials: what to pass, that the operation is read-only, and what comes back. Missing not-found behavior and output format are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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% — automation_id is fully described as 'The automation ID to retrieve'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific read operation ('Get detailed information') on a specific resource ('a specific automation') and clarifies the scope ('including all steps and settings'). This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like update_automation_settings and from list_automations, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 usage when an agent needs full details for one automation, but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routing. It doesn't say to use list_automations when an ID is unknown, so some inference is required.

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