get-success-criteria-detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description only covers the scope of returned data, missing critical operational context for a tool with unknown safety profile.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and clearly specifies inclusions and exclusions. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned but lacks completeness regarding behavioral aspects. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention response structure or operational constraints, but the core purpose is clear enough for basic use.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'ref_id'. The schema already fully describes the parameter as a success criterion reference number with examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the work.

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 ('Gets') and resource ('normative success criterion requirements'), specifying what information is included ('title and exception details') and excluded ('without Understanding documentation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-full-criterion-context' by focusing on core requirements only, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage when only basic success criterion details are needed, excluding Understanding documentation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-criterion' or 'get-full-criterion-context', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the implied scope.

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