Get timer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that - no notes on what happens if the timerId is unknown, whether cross-channel ids are accepted, or what fields the returned timer carries. For a fetch tool with no output schema, this is thin.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource and contains no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than deliberately tight.

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?

The tool is simple (two params, one required) and needs nothing about return values since no output schema exists, but the description still leaves the agent without any notion of what a 'bot timer' contains or how this differs from timers_list. Minimally adequate for a low-complexity read.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both timerId (24-char hex) and the optional channel fallback to SE_CHANNEL_ID are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb ('Get'), specific resource ('bot timer'), and explicit scope ('one ... by id'), which cleanly separates it from timers_list and the create/update/delete siblings. It stops short of naming or contrasting an alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer timers_get over timers_list, and no prerequisites such as needing a channel first. The agent must infer invocation context entirely from the tool name.

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