persistent_instructions_get_by_id

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

The verb 'Get' makes the read-only nature apparent, but with no annotations the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens for invalid or missing IDs, authentication expectations, or any response characteristics. It is minimally adequate for a simple getter but lacks behavioral detail.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The resource and lookup method are front-loaded, and the size is appropriately matched to the simplicity of a single-parameter get-by-id operation.

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 single-parameter, read-only get-by-id operation, the description is largely complete: an agent knows the resource, the operation type, and the required key. Explicit return or error semantics are not described, but they are reasonably self-evident for a getter and no output schema is expected.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, and the description only repeats that it is an integer ID. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Persistent Instruction'), and a unique lookup key ('integer ID'), which clearly distinguishes this from siblings such as persistent_instructions_search, persistent_instructions_cancel, and instructions_get_by_id. It is not a tautology and the scope is immediately understood.

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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives. For example, it does not say 'use this when you already have the ID' or 'use persistent_instructions_search when you do not have the ID.' An agent must infer the intended usage context from the tool name alone.

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