cja_get_segment_details

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get', 'retrieves'), but no annotations are present. It does not explicitly state side effects or safety, though for a get operation the behavior is transparent enough. Additional details on auth or rate limits would improve it.

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 fairly concise and well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, and Example queries. It could be slightly shorter by removing redundant phrases like 'which shows the exact logic and rules', but overall it is efficient.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality, parameters, and provides examples. It lacks error handling or permission notes, but is sufficient for a straightforward get 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful information for both parameters: segment_id is the ID to retrieve, and expansion lists possible additional fields. It does not provide format or constraints, but compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific segment, including definition and logic. The tool name and example queries reinforce this, and it is distinct from sibling tools like list_segments or create_segment.

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?

Example queries are provided, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_segments for listing, validate_segment for validation). No when-not guidance is given.

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