get_questionnaire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get metadata' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state read-only, mention required permissions, error behavior for missing identities, or any side effects. The description is too skeletal to inform an agent about operational traits.

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 with no redundancy. It states the action, resource, and identity format efficiently, which is ideal for a simple getter tool.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core action but misses key context: the profile parameter is unexplained, there is no mention of return value/failure behavior, and there is no differentiation from siblings. With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps make the definition incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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 50%: only questionnaire_identity is described (as 'GUID$Version format'), and profile is not. The description repeats the GUID$Version format but adds nothing new for questionnaire_identity, and completely omits any explanation of the profile parameter. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'metadata for one imported questionnaire/version', and the identity format 'GUID$Version'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_questionnaires (which lists all) and get_questionnaire_document (which retrieves the document). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_questionnaires or get_questionnaire_document. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no direct help in choosing this tool over its many questionnaire-related siblings.

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