get_assistant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get') and mentions the return includes full config. However, it does not disclose any error conditions, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. It is adequate but minimal.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and contains no filler. Every word is 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?

For a simple getter tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description provides enough context to understand the tool's behavior. It explains what the assistant_name is and that the result is the full configuration.

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%, so the base score is 3. The description adds the phrase 'by its short name' which is already in the schema's assistant_name description. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The workspace_name parameter is straightforward.

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 states the action ('Get') and the resource ('single AI assistant'), specifies it is by short name, and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_assistants' and 'create_assistant' by implying that this returns the full config of one assistant.

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 when you need a specific assistant's configuration, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_assistants' for listing all assistants, or 'get_workspace_config_index' for overview). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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