Get check

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('Get details'), which is transparent about non-mutating behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the UUID doesn't exist) or what exactly 'details' includes. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action, target, and key constraint (by UUID). There is no redundant information or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and a clear purpose. The description, combined with the schema, provides enough context for an agent to select and use it correctly. It could mention response format or error cases, but these are not critical given the tool's minimal complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'uuid' with the description 'The check's UUID'. The tool's description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving details of a single check by UUID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'check' are specific, and the 'single check by its UUID' aspect distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_checks, create_check, and update_check.

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 when to use the tool: when you need details of one specific check and have its UUID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tools. It could be improved by explicitly stating to use list_checks for multiple checks, but the current phrasing is sufficient.

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