getConstraints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly implies a safe read.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste: 'Get multiple Constraints by IDs'. It efficiently conveys the core action and key input, making it easy to parse. No extraneous details or redundancy are present.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of constraints), error cases, or behavioral context. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context would help the agent use it correctly, making this minimal description inadequate.

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%, with the parameter 'ids' documented as 'Constraint identifiers' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 resource ('Constraints'), specifying it retrieves multiple items by IDs. It distinguishes from sibling 'listConstraints' by focusing on specific IDs rather than listing all, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'getConstraints' vs 'getMetadata' or similar. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listConstraints' (for all constraints) or 'getProperty' (for property retrieval). The description implies usage when IDs are known, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's minimal and leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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