get_assistant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions fetching dynamic variables from webhook as an option, it doesn't explain what 'dynamic variables' are, how the webhook integration works, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response structure looks like. For a retrieval tool with potential side effects (webhook calls), this is insufficient.

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 reasonably concise with clear sections (Args, Returns). However, the parameter documentation is misleading given the schema mismatch, and the 'Returns' section is vague ('Dict[str, Any]: Response data'). The structure is good but the content has significant accuracy issues.

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 the complexity (retrieval with potential webhook side effects), lack of annotations, schema contradiction (description vs. actual parameters), and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't provide enough information for an agent to understand what the tool actually does, what parameters it accepts, or what it returns.

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?

The description lists 5 parameters with brief explanations, but the input schema shows only 1 parameter ('request') with 0% schema description coverage. This creates a severe contradiction: the description documents parameters that don't exist in the schema, while the actual schema parameter ('request') is completely undocumented. This makes parameter understanding impossible.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get an AI Assistant by ID.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('AI Assistant'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_assistants' or 'get_assistant_texml', which would require more specific scope details.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to assistants (e.g., 'list_assistants', 'update_assistant', 'get_assistant_texml'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain when this specific 'get' operation is appropriate versus listing or other retrieval methods.

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