get_show

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about auth requirements, error behavior for a missing key, or the returned shape, which is a real gap for a tool whose result is untyped.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and immediately supplies a concrete example. Nothing extraneous; every token serves the caller.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential lookup mechanics but omits return-shape and failure-mode context. That is adequate but leaves an agent under-informed about what it will receive.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required 'key' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add value by showing the expected key format ('/spartacus/party-time/'), which the bare string type does not convey, but gives no other constraint or validation info.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a show by key') and includes a concrete key example, which clearly separates it from sibling resources like get_user, get_tag, and get_object. It does not explicitly contrast itself with closer siblings such as search or get_object, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus search or get_object, and no prerequisites are stated. The example key hints that direct lookup requires an exact key, but the choice between this and alternatives is left entirely to inference.

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