Get Stopwatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it clarify edge cases like missing cards or unstarted stopwatches.

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, perfectly scoped sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 getter with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It could improve by explicitly noting that the operation is non-mutating and by clarifying the parameter role, but the low complexity keeps the gaps minor.

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?

The input schema has one unannotated `id` parameter and 0% schema description coverage. The description partially compensates by tying the operation to 'a card,' implying `id` is the card ID, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's meaning or format.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('stopwatch status for a card'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling start/stop/reset_stopwatch tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to read a stopwatch's status for a card. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like start_stopwatch or stop_stopwatch, nor does it mention any prerequisites.

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