get_concept

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the exact content returned (frontmatter, Markdown body, links) beyond 'read'. This is useful context, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the action, scope, and content, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or redundancy.

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 read operation with an output schema absent, the description adequately covers what is returned. It notes 'valid' which may imply validation behavior, but does not elaborate on error cases. Given the sibling set and the annotations covering safety, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all four parameters (id, uri, path, bundle) are already documented with their roles. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not exceptional. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Read one valid OKF concept') and specifies the resource and its contents (frontmatter, Markdown body, links). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_concepts (browsing multiple) and search_concepts (searching) by being explicitly for a single concept.

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 provides clear context for use: retrieving a single concept by its identifier. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'one' vs. 'list/search' semantics in sibling names imply the usage. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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