list_prefs_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds only the endpoint and confirms the get semantics, but it doesn't disclose default-null behavior, error cases, or response format. It neither contradicts nor substantially extends the annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action, with the endpoint and args cleanly separated. The grammar error is a minor blemish, but every line serves a purpose and there is no redundancy.

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?

This is a simple tool with safety annotations and an output schema, but the missing explanation of the optional/nullable id is material: an agent could call it without an id and get unexpected behavior. It also doesn't hint that list_prefs is the list-all counterpart, leaving real ambiguity in how to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the parameter as 'id: The preference to fetch,' which is nearly tautological. It doesn't explain value format, domain, or the meaning of the null default, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 identifies a GET operation for a specific preference using the id argument, and the endpoint line adds precision. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from the sibling list_prefs tool, and the phrasing 'a preferences' is grammatically awkward.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention list_prefs (the list-all sibling) or update_prefs, nor does it explain whether omitting the optional id is valid or what it returns. The null default is left entirely unexplained.

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