systems_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds only the fact that the system is 'saved' and looked up by ID, which is contextually useful but not a rich behavioral disclosure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

One short sentence communicates the action, object, and key scope. There is no wasted wording, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 read-only single-ID retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could arguably mention what a 'scoring system' includes or the return format, but the phrase 'Show a saved scoring system' sufficiently covers the expected behavior for an agent.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It relates system_id to the saved scoring system via 'by ID,' which is useful but somewhat redundant given the parameter is already named system_id. No additional detail is provided about where to find the ID or how the lookup behaves.

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 uses a clear verb ('Show') with a specific resource ('saved scoring system') and a precise access method ('by ID'). It naturally distinguishes this tool from siblings like systems_list, systems_create, and systems_update, making its role immediately understandable.

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 clearly implies the intended use case: retrieve a single existing scoring system when you have its ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like systems_list or systems_delete, but the 'by ID' scoping provides enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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