grocy_chore_get

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. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on error behavior for nonexistent IDs, no rate/permission context, no indication of what a chore record includes.

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?

Two short, front-loaded fragments with no filler, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing – the second sentence merely repeats the tool's transport rather than adding meaning.

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-only single-record fetch with one integer parameter and no output schema, the bar is low and the annotations cover safety. Still, an agent learns nothing about the shape of the returned chore or how to obtain a chore_id, leaving a 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% and the sole parameter chore_id is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. The {choreId} path template only restates that an ID is required; it does not say where the ID comes from (e.g., grocy_chores_list) or the accepted type/range.

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?

"Details of one chore" plus the endpoint path makes clear this returns a single chore record, which does distinguish it from the sibling grocy_chores_list. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and no statement of what the details contain, so it stays at minimum viable rather than specific.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus grocy_chores_list or grocy_chore_execute, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid chore_id obtained from the list call. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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