get-assessment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating the tool is read-only and may return partial results. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as auth requirements or rate limits. Since the annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is adequate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get', and contains no redundancy or fluff. Every word is necessary to convey the core function. A score of 5 is given for optimal conciseness.

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 simplicity (two string parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain the return value, pagination, or any details about the assessment. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context. A score of 2 indicates significant gaps in completeness for a user unfamiliar with the tool.

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 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain what 'traceId' and 'assessmentId' represent or how to obtain them. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, which is insufficient for a tool with low coverage. A score of 2 reflects the lack of parameter context.

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 verb 'Get' and the object 'assessment', specifying the identifiers 'trace ID and assessment ID'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete-assessment and update-assessment, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. A score of 4 indicates clear purpose but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings.

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 implies usage when you have a trace ID and assessment ID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-trace or get-run. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tool mentions, so a score of 3 is appropriate for implied usage without clear exclusions.

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