Get a signal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the explicit GET method and 'Body fields: none', but does not disclose additional behavior such as authentication needs, response shape, or embedding behavior. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, moving from a summary to endpoint, body note, and reference link. It is efficient overall, though the opening 'Get a signal' duplicates the title and 'Body fields: none' is nearly redundant with the schema. No unnecessary elaboration is present.

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-by-ID operation with strong annotations and a schema-described query object, this description is largely sufficient, especially with the reference link to authoritative docs. It lacks explicit guidance about when to use get_a_signal versus get_signals, but the operation is simple and no output schema is expected.

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?

The query object already carries a helpful schema description covering embed, offset/limit, and array comma-joining. The description adds the endpoint template and 'Body fields: none', which clarifies the path parameter role somewhat. However, it does little to explain signalID beyond what the schema provides, and schema coverage is only 50%.

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 states a specific verb and resource, reinforced by the REST endpoint GET /api/xm/1/signals/{signalID}. It is clearly a single-signal fetch, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_signals tool or define what a signal is. This is clear but stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage through the singular signalID path parameter and GET method, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_signals or any other alternative. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred context. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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