get_persistent_bot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no return shape, no auth requirements, no behavior when the bot is missing, and no note on what the nested basis/intent objects do.

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?

At four words there is no wasted language, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is there.

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 tool with nested object parameters, an idempotency key, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis to construct a correct call.

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%, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied, yet it says nothing about bot_id, basis, intent, or idempotency_key. Only the bare fact that a bot is identified strengthens any parameter, and the nested objects remain entirely opaque.

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?

"get persistent bot" restates the tool name with no verb detail, no statement of what a "persistent bot" is, and no distinction from siblings such as get_bot_context or list_persistent_memories. An agent can infer only that something bot-related is retrieved.

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 when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this over the many sibling retrieval tools, and no prerequisites stated. The name alone implies a lookup, but nothing tells the agent when this is the right lookup.

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