retrieve_initiative

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses the return type ('Initiative object'), the error condition ('ToolError: if the initiatives feature is disabled'), and explains the disabled-state behavior. This goes beyond a simple retrieve statement, though it does not explicitly state side-effect safety or authentication requirements.

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 compact and well-structured with clear Args, Returns, and Raises sections. The summary line is immediately actionable, and every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and the primary failure mode. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to elaborate on return fields. The disabled-feature fallback behavior is a valuable contextual addition.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only states the parameter type as 'string.' The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying 'initiative_id: UUID of the initiative,' clarifying the expected format and purpose. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptive detail, though it does not mention how to obtain the ID.

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 states 'Retrieve an initiative by ID,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_initiatives, create_initiative, update_initiative, and delete_initiative by indicating a single-object retrieval by identifier.

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 Raises section implies when this tool cannot be used (when the initiatives feature is disabled) and suggests the error provides next steps, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like retrieve_work_item or explain when to choose list_initiatives over this tool. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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