get-matter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details such as inclusion of custom fields and related records, and specifically notes invoices are returned as {id, type} references. However, it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or other potential side effects, though for a read-only 'get' operation this is moderately adequate.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and object, then efficiently lists what is included. There is no redundant wording 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description clearly enumerates the key return components (custom fields, related records, and the invoice reference format). It does not discuss the fields parameter's ability to reduce output or error scenarios, but for a single-resource GET tool with moderate complexity, it covers the essential context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it primarily describes the response contents rather than parameter usage. Baseline 3 applies because schema carries the load.

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 'Get full details for a single matter by ID', which is a specific verb + resource + scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-matters (which lists all) and find-matter (likely search) by emphasizing 'single matter by ID'.

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 phrase 'for a single matter by ID' clearly implies this tool is for retrieving one known matter, in contrast to listing or searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide usage.

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