get_speaker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the GET method, indicating a non-destructive read operation, and specifies the acceptable forms of the host parameter. For a simple lookup, this is sufficient transparency.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place by clarifying either the endpoint or a parameter. There is no filler 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers both required parameters and their sources. Minor omissions like error behavior or when to prefer list_speakers for bulk retrieval are not critical for this simple getter.

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%, but the description fully compensates: it explains the host accepts a console name, ID, or composite ID with a specified format, and gives a precise derivation path for speaker_id via `list_speakers`. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare string 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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('one speaker'), and identifier dimension ('by id'), plus the exact HTTP endpoint. It is distinguished from list_speakers by the word 'one' and from update_speaker/speaker_test_sound by the read-only intent.

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 tells the agent how to obtain the required speaker_id from `list_speakers`, which is a clear usage pointer. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool, but the 'one speaker by id' framing plus the sibling list makes the intended use obvious.

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