Get Chore

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely implies a read operation ('get details') but reveals nothing about error behavior for invalid IDs, permission requirements, return format, or scope of 'details.' This falls short for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, resource, and qualifier efficiently.

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 simple 1-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate since return values needn't be explained. However, it does not address the ambiguity with the get_chore_details sibling or note any special behavior, leaving it slightly incomplete for the tool's context.

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% (chore_id is documented as 'The ID of the chore to retrieve'), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description's 'by its ID' phrase only restates this without adding format, requirements, or edge-case details, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('get') and resource ('chore') with a scope qualifier ('by its ID'), which distinguishes it from list_chores. However, it fails to disambiguate from the close sibling get_chore_details, which sounds functionally equivalent, so it doesn't fully differentiate within the sibling set.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool mentions. Given the crowded chore namespace (with get_chore_details, list_chores, get_chore_history), there is no direction on when this tool is the right choice over siblings.

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