inject_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what information is returned and implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not mention permissions, error behavior, response shape, or whether comments/files are embedded.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the operation and key content. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description lists the main return elements (score, status, comments, files) but lacks detail on the exact structure or any prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps around response format and relationship to other inject-focused tools.

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% for the single inject_id parameter, so the schema already defines it. The description does not add further meaning about where to obtain the ID or any formatting constraints, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed inject information') and enumerates included fields (score, status, comments, files). This makes it clear it is an aggregate fetch for a single inject, distinguishing it from siblings like inject_get_comments and inject_get_files, though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when needing full inject details, but does not exclude or compare with inject_get_comments, inject_get_files, or injects_list, which are listed as siblings.

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