get_patch

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

No annotations exist, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or specifics beyond the return fields. The read operation is implied but not explicitly stated as non-destructive.

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 very concise (one sentence) with no wasted words. However, it omits important details, making it borderline under-specified. Conciseness slightly suffers from insufficient content.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and output fields. However, it lacks completeness in parameter explanation and usage context, leaving gaps for correct 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 0%, and the description adds no context about the required parameter 'patch_id'. It does not explain what a patch_id is, how to obtain it, or its format. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 (Get), the resource (a single patch), and specifies included fields (submitter, delegate, state, tags, check summary). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like search_patches (search) and list_projects (list).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or exclusion criteria. The agent receives no direction for tool selection.

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