Get AI assistant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the configuration contains, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior when the id is invalid, or whether fields can be null.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the field enumeration earns its place by previewing the payload. It is terse but not truncated.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description helpfully previews the returned configuration fields, compensating for the absent output schema. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid id, null fields), which is minor for this tool class.

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 100%, so both parameters (assistant_id and response_format enum) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's field list describes the return content rather than the parameters, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; 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 ('Get') and resource ('one assistant's configuration'), and enumerates the fields returned (goal, script, greeting, voice, model, transfer number). The singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from qcall_list_assistants, but no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied: fetching a single, already-identified assistant versus listing them. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like qcall_list_assistants or qcall_update_assistant.

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