Get segment details

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description goes beyond annotations by warning about the deprecation, the forced fallback to the client's default profile, and the inability to read other profiles' segments. These are important behavioral caveats that an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 reasonably concise and front-loads the core purpose before the deprecation warning. The segment-purpose sentence is helpful context but somewhat redundant with the title and first sentence, so it is not perfectly lean.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and a clear deprecation warning, the description is nearly complete. It lacks any mention of the response shape or fields, but the tool's purpose makes return values fairly predictable.

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%, with segmentUuid described as 'Segment uuid parameter'. The description confirms the segment is identified by UUID but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 that the tool retrieves details of a specific segment by UUID, naming both the resource and the operation. It provides a useful scope limitation ('cannot target a profile... cannot read segments of any other profile') that helps distinguish it from profile-scoped segment tools, though it does not name a specific sibling tool directly.

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 deprecation notice explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool (when targeting a specific profile) and provides the exact replacement endpoint. This is strong, actionable guidance that routes the agent to the alternative, leaving little to inference.

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