get_target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: it fetches one target with full body and is meant for legacy targets, which goes beyond the annotations and aids agent understanding.

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, first stating the function, second providing usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded effectively.

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?

The description is complete for a simple fetch tool: it identifies the operation, scope (legacy), and response nature (full body). It differentiates from many sibling get_* tools. Lacking output schema is acceptable given the context, but a slight gap is the absence of note about parameters or response structure beyond 'full body'.

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% (id and instance both described). The description does not add new information about parameters but aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema adequately handles semantics.

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 legacy target by ID with full body', specifying the verb (fetch), resource (target), and distinguishing scope (legacy). It explicitly contrasts with get_webhook for new integrations, making purpose 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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'For new integrations prefer get_webhook' and implies this tool is for legacy targets. This clearly tells when to use and when not to, with a specific alternative.

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