get_jam

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does add real context: the response is permission-scoped ("The Jam's creator also sees its invitees and the agents chosen for the draft"), meaning output varies by caller role. It also discloses that prompts carry probability and reasoning-length metadata. It does not mention pagination or failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then what is returned, then the args block. Every sentence carries information; the only minor inefficiency is the slightly fragmented second sentence about prompt fields.

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, so return shape needn't be spelled out, yet the description still covers it at a useful level plus the role-dependent visibility caveat and ID provenance. For a one-param read tool nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 0% for the single jam_id param, so the description must compensate, and it does by stating the value's provenance (from list_jams or create_jam) – genuine guidance beyond the bare string pattern. It doesn't restate the pattern constraint, but that is already in the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Show a Jam") and enumerates what comes back: description, status and ordered prompts. It implicitly separates itself from list_jams and the get_jam_results/get_jam_responses siblings by framing this as the single-Jam detail read, though it never names them explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use / when-not comparison against list_jams or get_jam_results. The only routing signal is the arg note telling the agent where the ID comes from (list_jams or create_jam), which implies the intended workflow but leaves the choice of tool to inference.

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