get_stage

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. It only states 'Get a stage by id', revealing nothing about error handling (e.g., 404 when not found), response format, or side effects. The HTTP method GET implies read-only, but that is the extent of behavioral context. The description is not misleading but is severely under-informative.

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, concise sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the HTTP endpoint for clarity. While it is minimal, it is appropriately sized for a straightforward get-by-id operation, earning a high conciseness score despite lacking depth.

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?

This is a simple retrieval tool, but the description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional context. It does not describe the return value (since there is no output schema), nor does it mention error cases, authentication, or related concepts like what constitutes a 'stage' in this API. Sibling tools exist for creating and updating stages, but no cross-references are given. Given the tool's simplicity, the description falls short of what is needed for confident invocation.

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 50%: the id parameter has no description, and extraQuery does. The tool description does not elaborate on either parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate by explaining id's format or usage, but it does not. The id's meaning is inferable from the name, but extraQuery remains only partially explained by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level value.

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', the resource 'stage', and the identifier 'by id', making the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_stages (plural), create_stage, and update_stage by specifying a single stage retrieval. The HTTP method (GET /stages/{id}) reinforces the read-only nature.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that list_stages should be used to fetch multiple stages, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. For a simple getter, implied usage exists (when you have a stage ID), but the lack of explicit direction leaves agents to infer.

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