reach_getAutomationDetailsV1

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly conveys a read operation via 'Get', describes the specific contact-count metrics returned, and clarifies that it does not return the workflow. It could add permission/error caveats, but the core behavior is transparent for a get-detail tool.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the main purpose and then provide the key alternative. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with two required parameters, the description covers the essential return information (automation plus counts) and disambiguates from the steps workflow. It does not specify exact response formatting or error behavior, but this is acceptable given the tool's low complexity.

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%, but the parameter descriptions are generic placeholders ('Profile uuid parameter', 'Automation uuid parameter'). The tool description does not add semantic detail about the parameters. The parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory, so this meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a single automation with contact counts for entered, in-progress, finished, and failed contacts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reach_listAutomationsV1 and reach_listAutomationStepsV1 by specifying the singular detail scope and the unique count data it returns.

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 gives explicit usage boundaries: it describes the automation itself, and it points to the steps endpoint as the alternative when the workflow is needed. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus a closely related sibling.

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