get_grid

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral information. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is generally safe, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, error conditions, or any other behaviors. It is accurate and non-misleading but offers no additional detail, hence a baseline acceptable score of 3.

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 consists of a single, clear sentence that is directly on point. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy or wasted text, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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 getter with one required parameter and no nested objects, the description covers the essential functionality. The presence of an output schema means the return value does not need to be described. While it lacks any mention of error handling or edge cases, the low complexity of the tool makes the description adequately complete for its context.

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 schema has zero description coverage—there is no description for the 'grid_id' parameter. The description 'by id' adds only minimal semantic value, leaving the agent to infer that the ID is an integer. Since the schema does not explain the parameter and the description does not compensate, the score drops below the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('a single dashboard grid') and scope ('by id'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling 'list_grids' by emphasizing 'single', which is exactly what an agent needs to differentiate the two.

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 context for when to use this tool is implicitly clear (when you have a grid ID and want a single result), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. Since the sibling tool 'list_grids' is not mentioned, the usage context is only implied. This matches a score of 3 (minimum viable).

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