get_software_by_id

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action (view) without disclosing any behavioral traits such as behavior when the ID is not found, required permissions, or whether it's a safe read. The description adds almost no value beyond what the tool name implies.

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 compact, but it is under-specified to the point of being mostly redundant. The Args block restates schema information, and the main sentence is minimal. It is not inefficient, but it also doesn't earn its place by adding value.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it provides no context about use cases, prerequisites, or error behavior, which is especially important because annotations are absent. The contrast with sibling tools is also missing.

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%, and the description merely restates the parameter name ('software_id: The software ID.') without adding any meaning such as where to obtain the ID, accepted formats, or edge cases. This is purely redundant with 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 uses a clear verb 'View' with a specific resource 'a specific software entry', conveying both the action and the singular scope. This distinguishes it from sibling 'get_software' (which presumably lists entries), though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_software or other get_by_id tools. The requirement for a software_id is implicit from the argument list, but there is no explicit instruction on selecting this tool over siblings.

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