spore_get

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 the search order ('searches open first, then resolved') and what the return includes ('full record including computed germination and any resolution'). However, it does not mention what happens if the id is not found (e.g., returns null or error), leaving a minor behavioral gap.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence immediately states the primary action, and the second adds return details. Every word contributes useful information, adhering to the principle of front-loading key content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality and return content well. It explains the search behavior and what the response contains. However, it omits the case of a missing spore (error/null) and does not mention that the return is a JSON object, which could be helpful. Still, it is largely complete for a straightforward fetch tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the id is used for searching in a specific order (open then resolved), which is beyond the schema's format-only description. This enriches the semantic understanding of the single parameter.

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 'Fetch one spore by id', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spore_list (listing) and spore_add (creation) by focusing on single spore retrieval. The additional detail about searching open first then resolved further clarifies its unique behavior.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spore_list for multiple spores or spore_surface for a summary. While the search order hint provides implicit context, there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead.

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