get_command_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the HTTP method and path, not additional behavioral context like response details, error behavior, or authorization, so it provides no value beyond 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: 'Read Command' immediately conveys the purpose. The Args line is mostly redundant with the schema but adds the path-parameter detail, so it earns its place without adding bloat.

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 an output schema, the description is nearly adequate. However, it does not point to list_command for enumerating commands or describe any relevant error semantics, leaving a small but real gap.

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%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only says 'id: Path parameter.' This barely extends the schema's integer type and does not explain that id is the command identifier or how to obtain it.

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 'Read Command' and gives the exact GET /api/v3/command/{id} endpoint, clearly identifying a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_command, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus list_command or other get_*_by_id tools. The description provides no alternatives, exclusions, or usage context beyond the bare statement 'Read Command.'

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