read_scheme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a simple fetch operation with no side effects, but fails to disclose behaviors like error handling or response format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, so the description is adequate but minimal.

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, using two sentences for the overall purpose and one sentence for the parameter. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It could be improved by noting error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), but as it is, it is nearly complete for a basic fetch operation.

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 one required integer parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'numeric ID' which is redundant with the schema type. It does not provide additional context such as valid ranges or 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 clearly states 'Fetch a single scheme by numeric ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_scheme, delete_scheme, update_scheme, and search_schemes.

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 when you have a numeric ID for a scheme, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_schemes, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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