tech_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the result is complete and not truncated. It does not address not-found behavior, permissions, errors, or how `only_len` interacts with the 'no truncation' promise, but for a simple getter this is partial rather than absent disclosure.

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 is a single front-loaded sentence that states the core behavior and adds a useful analogy via `mem_get_observation`. The trailing '(R8)' is process metadata that adds no value for an agent, which prevents a perfect score.

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 relatively simple and has an output schema, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. However, the optional `only_len` parameter is not explained, and there is no explicit guidance on choosing this over sibling tools. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves notable gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for missing parameter meaning. It does not mention `id` or `only_len`; `id` is inferable as the observation identifier from 'observación,' but `only_len` remains unexplained. This is a clear gap because the optional boolean could change the output shape.

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 that the tool returns the complete content of an observation without truncation, establishing the verb/resource relationship. It helps differentiate from list/search siblings by emphasizing full, untruncated content. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it stops short of maximum clarity.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when full observation content is needed rather than a truncated view. The reference to `mem_get_observation` provides an analog, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings like `tech_search` or `tech_list_open`. The usage context is present but only implied.

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