get_intervention

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling if the ID is not found, permissions required, or what 'details' are included in the response.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool, though it omits any additional context that could be included without bloating.

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 description is minimally viable for a simple get-by-ID tool, providing enough to understand the basic purpose. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, it leaves gaps about the exact return content and edge cases, making it only adequate, not comprehensive.

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 description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all. Although the parameter is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value to clarify its purpose, format, or usage.

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 'Obtenir' (get) and resource 'détails d'une fiche d'intervention', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_interventions, create_intervention, and close_intervention. The action and target are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites, such as needing an intervention ID, or scenarios where list_interventions would be more appropriate.

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