get_art

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'system-level operation', which hints at no user-specific filtering, and 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation. However, it does not disclose return format, error handling, or access implications. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The key information (verb, resource, qualifier) is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the input (ID) and the purpose (art details). It does not describe the exact return shape, but for a getter this is fairly self-evident. Sibling tools like list_arts further disambiguate.

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 100% coverage for the only parameter (art_id) with description 'Art ID'. The description echoes 'by ID' without adding new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 'Get art details by ID', using a specific verb and resource. It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like list_arts or get_art_collection by focusing on single-art retrieval via ID.

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 'by ID' implies this tool is for retrieving a specific art when the ID is known. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context signals show list_arts as a sibling, which provides circumstantial guidance, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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