get

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. Beyond that, the description discloses the shape of the returned payload — dependency classifications (satisfied/blocking/external/missing), dependants, questions, acceptance criteria — which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It stops short of noting failure behavior for a bad ref or any size/rate considerations.

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, front-loaded with the core action ('Full detail of one initiative') and then the payload breakdown. The parenthetical list is dense but every item earns its place by describing distinct returned data.

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 read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned, which is the main risk. It leaves two gaps: the undocumented 'collection' parameter and no indication of what happens when the ref cannot be resolved.

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 only 50%: 'ref' is documented with its accepted forms, but 'collection' has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about either parameter — no mention of the ref format or how 'collection' interacts with a bare-number ref — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific resource ('one initiative') and enumerates exactly what comes back — dependency report with four classifications, dependants, open questions, acceptance criteria. That is far more than the bare name 'get' conveys. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like 'list', 'graph', or 'ready', so the agent must infer that this is the single-item detail fetch.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no sibling is named as an alternative. The phrase 'one initiative' weakly implies this is the single-item counterpart to 'list', but the agent gets no guidance on when to prefer 'get' over 'graph' or 'questions' for the same underlying data.

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