get_meeting_agenda_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine environmental prerequisite, OpenProject 17.6+, which an agent cannot learn from annotations or schema and which determines whether the call is even available.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the version caveat is a separate line where it belongs.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return-value explanation is unnecessary; the version prerequisite is the one extra fact an agent needs. It could still note behavior when the id does not exist or belongs to another project, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented with its provenance (from list_meeting_agenda_items). The description adds no extra semantics about the id format or scope, so 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 and resource ("Get a single meeting agenda item by id"), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves and that it is the singular counterpart to list_meeting_agenda_items. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: retrieve one item when you have an id. The useful routing hint ("from list_meeting_agenda_items") lives in the schema parameter description, not the tool description. No when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives is given in the description itself.

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