get_work_experience

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe behavior. The description adds that it returns an error object if the id is not found, which is useful but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits (e.g., whether achievements are nested or how many).

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or waste.

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 nature of this read tool (single parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and error behavior. It mentions that achievements are included, aligning with the tool's scope. The presence of an output schema compensates for missing return value details.

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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single work experience entry with its achievements'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_work_experiences (which lists) and get_achievement (which gets a single achievement).

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 implies usage by stating the tool gets a single entry, and the parameter description indicates the id comes from list_work_experiences. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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