get_sender

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Show') but does not disclose authentication needs, potential errors, or whether the operation is safe. Minimal behavioral 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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it lacks structure like bullet points or sections. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention return value structure (though output schema exists) or confirm read-only behavior comprehensively.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning for the 'sender_id' parameter beyond the schema title 'Sender Id'. It fails to explain what a sender_id is or how to obtain it.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('Sender's IS-05 staged + active connection state and its constraints'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect_sender_to_receiver or disable_sender by focusing on viewing state.

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 usage for viewing connection state but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_sender_transport_file or get_receiver). No guidance on prerequisites or limitations.

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