get_command_by_id

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already convey that this is a safe, non-mutating, idempotent read operation. The description adds the detail that it uses a GET request and a path parameter, which is consistent but not surprising. It doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like error handling or response format beyond what the output schema might provide. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 very brief, just a few lines, which is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose 'Read Command'. However, it includes redundant technical details like the full HTTP path and 'Args: id: Path parameter.' that are already visible in the schema and may not add value for an agent. It's concise but not maximally informative.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema that likely describes the return value. The description provides the essential operation and endpoint, but lacks information about error scenarios or any special conditions for retrieval. Given the tool's simplicity and the output schema, it's minimally complete but not rich in context.

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 0%, meaning the description provides no parameter information. The schema itself only gives the type (integer) and title (Id), but lacks any description of what the ID represents or its format. The description says 'Args: id: Path parameter.' which restates that it's a path parameter but adds no semantic meaning. With zero coverage, the description should compensate, and it fails to do so.

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 begins with 'Read Command', which states the verb and resource clearly. However, it doesn't specify what a 'Command' is or what the response contains, and there are many sibling get_*_by_id tools, so it doesn't distinguish itself from, say, get_notification_by_id or get_tag_by_id beyond the resource name. It is clear enough for basic intent but lacks specificity about the domain object.

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 that it's for retrieving a single command by ID, nor does it explain the context in which you'd choose this over list_command or other get_*_by_id tools. The description only states the HTTP endpoint and arguments, leaving usage entirely implied.

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