basecamp_get_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed information and mentions specific response fields (subscribers, color, cards count). However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, though 'Get' strongly implies a safe read. Some behavioral context is added beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key response details without any wasted words. It earns its place by adding specific examples of returned information.

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 getter with two string parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It names response fields but lacks parameter semantics and explicit read-only or error behavior. Given no annotations, this leaves some gaps for the agent to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only says 'a specific column', which implicitly references column_id but does not explain the role of project_id or provide any parameter-level guidance. This is a significant gap for a tool with two undocumented parameters.

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 resource 'detailed information about a specific column', with specific examples of the information included (subscribers, color, cards count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_columns (which lists all columns) and other column mutations.

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 provides clear context that this is for retrieving details of a single column, which implies use when you need specific column data rather than a list. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the naming and wording make the intended use clear.

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