sch_get_wire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not say what happens if an ID is missing, whether results are ordered, or how multi-ID lookup behaves, so it merely restates the name.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the resource plus lookup key are front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

This is a simple read tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, so the thin description is close to sufficient. Still missing are the multi-ID result shape and any failure behavior, which matter slightly for a batch lookup even though the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 already documents document, instance_id and the single-or-array primitiveIds, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'one or more ... ID(s)' echoes the anyOf structure without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get ... wires') plus the lookup key ('by primitive ID(s)'), which distinguishes it from the bulk sibling sch_get_all_wires. It stops short of naming that sibling or scoping what 'wire' covers, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions the obvious alternative sch_get_all_wires (for listing every wire) or sch_get_primitive (for a generic primitive fetch), so the agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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