Get Check

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already covering safety, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the response always includes 'available_versions' and that omitting version returns the most recent. It also discloses that the configuration includes prompt template or code contents, going beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundant filler or repetition of schema information.

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 get-by-name endpoint with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the optional version behavior and guarantees that all versions are returned in the response. It does not need to describe return fields because an output schema exists, and annotations handle safety semantics.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully documents both parameters: name identifies the check, and version is optional with pinning behavior and a clear directive to omit for the latest version. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types and default.

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 opens with 'Retrieve the full configuration of a check by name,' which clearly states the verb (retrieve), resource (check configuration), and scope (by name). It further distinguishes from list_checks by specifying 'including its prompt template or code contents,' making the specific use case unambiguous.

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 when you need a full check configuration (as opposed to a list), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The version guidance is useful but does not address tool selection among siblings like list_checks or get_driver.

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