structure_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what is included (metadata fields) and what is excluded (hierarchy), which helps set expectations about the response. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, immediately followed by an exclusion and pointers. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 read-only metadata lookup with strong annotations and full schema parameter descriptions, the description sufficiently covers purpose, scope, and exclusions. No output schema, but the description lists the main return fields, making it complete for an agent to invoke.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (withOwner, structureId, withPermissions). The description adds minimal extra parameter information—only implying that the id is the lookup key and listing the owner field, which overlaps with schema. Therefore baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Get Tempo Structure metadata by id') and enumerates the returned fields (name, description, owner). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not include hierarchy and pointing to structure_getForest/structure_getBoard, so the agent can select it correctly.

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?

It explicitly names alternatives for the excluded case (hierarchy: structure_getForest / structure_getBoard), giving a clear when-not and alternative. The 'by id' usage is implicit in the action, which is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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