view_canned_response

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'View a canned response' without indicating read-only status, potential errors (e.g., not found), or any other behavioral specifics. The verb 'view' implies a read operation, but no explicit transparency is provided.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, conveying the core purpose immediately. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the availability of sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate but lacks additional context such as what the response contains or any operational constraints. It is not misleading, but it does not fully inform the agent about expected behavior or edge cases.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter, 'canned_response_id', and the tool description does not explain its meaning or usage. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's action ('View') and resource ('canned response'), making its purpose obvious. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'list_canned_responses' by the verb 'view', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description is concise and accurate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_canned_responses' or 'update_canned_response'. No context about prerequisites, expected use cases, or exclusions is given.

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