get_alias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. Missing details such as error handling (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, or side effects. While a get operation is inherently safe, more transparency would improve guidance.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. No extraneous words, and the example is helpful without being verbose. It is optimally 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 retrieval tool with 3 parameters (all described in schema), the description is nearly complete. It lacks mention of the return type or output structure, but since there is no output schema, this is acceptable. The description could be slightly more detailed about what the response contains (e.g., alias details), but it is adequate for a straightforward get operation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the parameter can be an id or alias name and gives an example format. This goes beyond the schema's parameter description, which only says 'Alias id or the alias hostname.' However, teamId and slug are not elaborated further.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('alias'), and explicitly states it retrieves a single alias by id or alias name. It distinguishes from siblings like list_aliases (multiple) and delete_alias (delete). The example clarifies the alias name format.

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 when to use (retrieve a single alias) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. It relies on the context that this is for a single alias, while list_aliases exists for multiple, but no direct comparison is made.

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