get-data

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

The annotations include 'idempotentHint: true' and a title, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies a recommended workflow (sample query first, then get-schema), warns against certain actions (reading files or fetching URLs), and implies data retrieval from a SQLite file. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations, as idempotency aligns with data retrieval.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally front-loaded; it starts with the core purpose but quickly shifts to workflow instructions. Some sentences, like the visualization warning, are useful but could be more integrated. Overall, it's concise but could be structured better to prioritize essential information first.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and idempotent annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral context. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. Minor gaps include lack of explicit sibling differentiation and deeper parameter insights.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (dataflowId, executionId, query). The description doesn't add specific meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples. However, it mentions querying a sample and using 'get-schema,' which indirectly relates to the 'query' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantic details.

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's purpose: 'Get data from a Coupler.io data flow run.' It specifies the resource (data flow run) and action (get data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-dataflow' or 'list-dataflows' beyond mentioning 'get-schema' as a complementary tool, which slightly reduces clarity regarding sibling distinctions.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it instructs to first query a sample of 5 rows from the 'data' table, then run the 'get-schema' tool to understand the structure, and advises against reading files or fetching URLs when visualizing data. It names 'get-schema' as an alternative/complementary tool, offering clear context for when to use this tool in a workflow.

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