Get Retrospective Process

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior when the ID is missing, no mention of what the 'include' expansions change in the response, and no indication of permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is also part of why other dimensions are thin.

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, an output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the schema documents both parameters well. What is missing is the relational context — when to call this versus list_retrospective_processes or get_retrospective_step — which is the main gap for a getter in a large sibling set.

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%, and the schema itself is unusually strong (it notes the {id} path binding and warns there is no retrospective_process_id argument). The description contributes no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific retrospective process') with the lookup key ('by id'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as list_retrospective_processes, get_retrospective_step, or get_retrospective_process_group, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'by id' weakly implies the tool requires an existing identifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to list_retrospective_processes for discovering IDs or browsing. The agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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