mesh_get

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

No annotations are provided, so this description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful behavioral facts: the call returns base64 content and falls back to a default host. It also implies a read-only operation without specifying side-effects, which for a fetch tool is reasonably transparent. It does not address error cases or permissions, but not essential for a simple retrieval.

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?

All key aspects are contained in two sentences, tightly packed with no filler: what it fetches, how the ID looks, what the output is, and the default host. Purpose and output format are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 simple: two params, no output schema, no nested objects. Given that, the description adequately covers the MCID input format, the returned content type, and the default host. It does not mention error behavior or response size, but these are not required for basic correctness and the description is effectively complete in the context of this simple tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with types, pattern, length, and defaults. The description adds cross-referencing context ('as returned by mesh_put') and notes the hex format, but it mostly restates schema facts. A neutral score is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting; the description adds no essential parameter-level detail.

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 names a concrete verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('content-addressed artifact from the mesh'), and key format constraints (hex MCID, 68 chars). It clearly identifies the artifacts as those produced by mesh_put, which distinguishes it from retrieval of rooms, inbox, or record searches.

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 phrase 'as returned by mesh_put' implies the obvious use case: fetch a value you previously stored. But there is no explicit mention of when NOT to use this tool or which sibling alternatives (e.g., mesh_recall, mesh_find_record) might be better for other lookup patterns. The usage context is only implied, not spelled out.

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