get_idea

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid id, permissions, or what an 'idea' contains. Adequate but not rich.

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-loaded with the pipeline stage and the core action, with the usage hint trailing. No wasted words, though the bracketed stage tag is slightly decorative.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials. It omits any note on error handling or return content, but annotations and schema richness are minimal, so the gap is small.

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 a single required 'id' parameter already documented as 'Idea UUID' with format uuid. The description only restates 'by id', adding no new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a single idea by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from list_ideas and the mutating siblings update_idea/promote_idea. The pipeline-step label adds workflow context but not further disambiguation.

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?

Gives a concrete scenario: use it when promote_idea or update_idea needs full context first. This routes the agent to the tool at the right moment, though it doesn't state when NOT to use it or exclusivity conditions.

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