Get Program

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

With no annotations provided, the description relies on the verb 'Get' and the phrase 'full details' to signal a read-only retrieval returning complete program information. It does not mention not-found behavior, auth requirements, or what fields constitute 'full details,' but this is minimally adequate for a simple fetch operation.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The operation, resource, and parameter are all stated clearly and early, so every phrase contributes to selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 simple one-parameter read operation, the description captures the essential contract: fetch all details for one program by ID. The lack of an output schema leaves the return structure unspecified, but the tool is simple enough that this definition is not misleading.

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 100%; the pid parameter is documented as 'Program ID (0-based index from get_programs),' so the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('single watering program') and the selection criterion ('by ID'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_programs by making 'single' explicit, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_programs or other siblings. The phrase 'single... by ID' weakly implies per-program access, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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