get_segment

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, requires no specific permissions, or any other behavioral traits. The name 'get' implies read, but no confirmation or additional behaviors (e.g., rate limits, response size) are disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with key action and scope. 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks details on return format, common use cases, or differentiation from siblings like get_segment_details. It is minimally complete but not fully informative for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds one relevant phrase ('including optional targeting rules') that corresponds to the include_rules parameter, but does not elaborate on the other three parameters (dataset, segment_id, include_raw) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get details for a single Interaction Studio segment by id, including optional targeting rules.' It specifies the verb (get), the resource (segment), the scope (single, by id), and an optional component (targeting rules). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_segments.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_segments, get_segment_details). It omits prerequisites, context for parameters like include_raw, and when not to use. Only the name and vague mention of 'optional' provide indirect hints.

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