get_parameter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return type ('parameter dict') and the error behavior (not-found is an 'isError' result, to be surfaced rather than fabricated), which is useful and goes beyond the schema. It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or explicitly state read-only behavior, but for a simple getter the key behaviors are covered.

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 an opening purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds needed information, with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter lookup with a single required argument and an output schema present, the description covers input semantics, return value, and not-found handling. It could optionally note when to prefer list_parameters or search_parameters, but this is a minor gap rather than a missing essential detail.

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%, so the description must fully explain the parameter, and it does. It explains that 'name' accepts canonical names or aliases, with or without leading '--', is case-insensitive, and provides concrete examples. This is stronger than typical schema text.

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 action ('Return the full record') and the resource ('a single parameter'), and it narrows the scope by mentioning canonical names and aliases. It implicitly differentiates from list_parameters and search_parameters as a direct single-record lookup, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus list_parameters or search_parameters. The phrase 'single parameter' weakly implies direct lookup by name, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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