get_static_component_override

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, omitting important details such as whether the tool returns null or an error if no override exists, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation, it is safe but lacks necessary behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with 12 words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the key information. Every word 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?

Given no output schema, the description could explain the return format (e.g., returns override object or null). It does not, leaving agents uncertain about the response. However, for a simple get operation, it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters described. The description mentions the date and component, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as per guidelines.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'status override for a static component on a specific date'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upsert_static_component_override, which is for creating/updating. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for reading overrides but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upsert_static_component_override). It provides no when-not or guidance on prerequisites. The context of the name partially compensates but not enough for a higher score.

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