Get an initiative

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the case/spacing-insensitivity of codename matching and the fallback behavior on unresolved codename. However, it does not mention authorization or rate limits, but given it's a read operation, the transparency is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful. First defines core function, second gives usage advice, third describes error handling. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description hints at return content ('full plan/todos/progress log') and covers the case of invalid codename. It is sufficiently complete for a get-by-key tool, though it could specify whether the return is a single object or may include nested items.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to both parameters: 'codename (case/spacing-insensitive)' and indirectly explains 'project' through the fallback mention ('lists that project's known initiatives'). It could be improved by explicitly describing the project parameter.

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 ('Fetch the full plan/todos/progress log') and the resource ('one named initiative by codename'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_initiatives by focusing on a single initiative and mentions the fallback behavior that lists project initiatives, which differentiates its scope.

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?

Explicitly advises when to call the tool ('PROACTIVELY at the start of a session when the user references resuming a specific named effort') and what to expect if the codename doesn't resolve ('lists that project's known initiatives instead of erroring'). This helps the agent decide between get_initiative and list_initiatives.

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