get_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the operation returns 'metadata' rather than full results, and contrasts against diagnose_check's richer content. It doesn't mention error behavior or authentication, but the 'get' semantics and 'metadata' scope make the operation's behavior reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the sibling routing is provided in a compact second sentence that earns its place.

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 two-parameter get operation with a fully documented schema and a clear alternative, this is nearly complete. No output schema exists, and the term 'metadata' is slightly vague on return shape, but the with-field options in the schema compensate.

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 the schema already fully documents both identifier and 'with'. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond labeling the identifier as a UID or slug, which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action ('Get a single check's metadata'), identifies the resource scope ('by UID or slug'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from diagnose_check. An agent can immediately tell this from list_checks and diagnose_check without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (diagnose_check) and the condition for preferring it ('full triage briefing'). This clearly tells the agent when not to use get_check, which is the core of usage guidance.

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