retrieve_initiative

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

No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral details such as whether the tool returns an error if the initiative doesn't exist, or what the response structure is. It does not indicate that it's a read-only operation or discuss any side effects.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it omits any mention of error handling or authentication requirements. For a simple retrieval, it's minimally adequate but could be more informative.

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 a clear description for initiative_id ('UUID of the initiative'). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('initiative'), and specifies the method ('by ID'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_initiatives (which returns multiple) and update_initiative (which modifies).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't contrast with list_initiatives or other retrieve_* tools. No prerequisites or context provided.

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