get_smell

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the disclosure of returned content sections (symptoms, fix recipe, related prompts). It says nothing about behavior for unknown IDs, whether missing smells error or return empty, or how locale changes the result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the returned sections are stated immediately, and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back. However, it leaves the locale parameter unexplained and gives no guidance on obtaining a valid ID, which are the remaining gaps an agent would hit.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'id' is well documented with examples, but 'locale' has an enum and default with no explanation anywhere. The description reinforces 'by ID' but never mentions the locale parameter or what it localizes, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 plus resource ('Get a UX smell (anti-pattern) by ID') and even names the payload (symptoms, fix recipe, related prompts). The 'by ID' framing implicitly separates it from list_smells and detect_smell, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by ID' suggests the agent must already hold a smell ID (e.g., from list_smells or detect_smell) before calling. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of the alternative reading tools in the sibling set.

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