specialist_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the exact not_found error contract and the 'when available' caveat for persona file path. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoped to the essential facts: what is fetched, what is returned for unknown agents, and the read-only usage context. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, error behavior, and read-only nature, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it omits the semantics of app_id and include_permissions, and does not describe the successful return shape beyond persona text and file path. An agent could still call it correctly but would be guessing about the optional parameter.

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. It explains agent_id as the lookup key, but app_id is required and unexplained, and include_permissions (a boolean with a default) is not described at all. This leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one specialist's registry row by agent_id'), and clarifies what the row contains (compiled persona text, persona file path). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like specialist_list, which would return multiple rows.

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 gives a clear use context: an orchestrator inspects a specialist before dispatching work to it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular 'one specialist's registry row' and the read-only framing make the intended use reasonably clear.

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