get_assistant_texml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the TEXML content is returned as raw text or structured data. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two-sentence structure (purpose and returns) is efficient, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are slightly redundant with the schema but not wasteful.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and return type, but lacks context on usage, behavior, or output format details, which could be helpful for an agent despite the simple schema.

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 'assistant_id' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format, examples, or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('assistant's TEXML by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_assistant' (which likely returns general assistant info) and 'list_assistants' (which lists multiple assistants). The mention of 'TEXML content' specifies the exact data returned.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving TEXML content for a specific assistant ID, it doesn't mention when to choose this over other assistant-related tools like 'get_assistant' or prerequisites for usage.

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