subsprint_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies non-destructive behavior, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, permission requirements, or side effects. The phrase 'compact item rows' hint at the output but remains vague.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose without filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource and a key output characteristic. However, no output schema or annotations exist, and the description does not explain the 'compact' aspect or whether all subsprint fields are returned. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 compensate by explaining the 'id' parameter. Although 'id' is self-explanatory given the tool name, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already shows (a required string). For low coverage, the description should provide at least basic parameter context.

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 'Read one subsprint with compact item rows' clearly states the action (read), the resource (one subsprint), and a distinguishing detail (compact item rows). It differentiates from sibling tools like subsprint_list (which presumably lists subsprints) and item_get (which targets a single item).

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 subsprint, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like subsprint_list or item_get. There is no mention of when not to use it or any preconditions, so guidance is only implied.

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