get_preference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain what happens when the preference does not exist, what data is returned, or whether any side effects occur.

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 concise and free of filler, with the action front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the expense of useful context, so it reads more as under-specification than as efficient communication.

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 single-parameter tool, the description is minimal but still incomplete: there is no output schema, so the agent is not told what a successful response looks like, nor is there guidance on invalid or missing preference names. The description leaves too much to inference.

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 input schema has one undocumented 'name' parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'a specific preference' weakly suggests that 'name' identifies the preference, but it does not explain valid values, format, case sensitivity, or how the parameter maps to preference lookup.

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 states a clear action—getting a preference—and identifies the resource as a specific, named preference. It is distinguishable from list_preferences and update_preference by the word 'specific', though it does not explicitly call out those sibling tools.

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 instead of list_preferences, update_preference, or get_rule. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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