get_part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation (retrieve by ID) without describing error cases (e.g., missing part), authentication needs, or idempotency. A simple retrieval may have limited behavioral complexity, but the lack of any additional context leaves the agent uninformed about potential failure modes.

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 conveys the essential information. While it is very brief, it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is arguably sufficient but lacks details about return values or error behavior. Given the absence of annotations, additional context (e.g., 'Returns a part object with fields...') would improve completeness. It meets the minimum viable standard.

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 covers 100% of the parameters and describes 'partId' adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation. Since schema coverage is high, a score 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 'Get a specific part by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('part') with a clear identifier ('by ID'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_parts' (listing) and 'create_part' (creation).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_parts' for multiple parts). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage independently.

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