bak_get_tradition_detail

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by detailing the output fields (titel, beschreibung, kantone_mention, url) and the source of the data, which complements the annotations well.

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 structured into clear sections: action, source, slug retrieval, examples, and input/output. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability.

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 simple interface (one parameter, with output schema) and the annotations, the description comprehensively covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect in the response. No obvious gaps.

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 provides a description for the slug parameter, and the description supplements it with practical examples of known slugs, adding value beyond the schema.

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 it fetches the detail description of a living tradition from the BAK inventory, specifies the source (lebendige-traditionen.ch), and distinguishes from siblings like bak_list_traditions by explaining how to obtain the slug.

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 explicitly mentions that the slug can be obtained from bak_list_traditions or as a known short name, guiding the user on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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