get_constellation

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'No writes or external sending.' It adds behavioral guarantees about identity source ('UID and merged-UID claims are the only identity source') and non-retargeting of display paths/titles, which go beyond the structured 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and keeps all content relevant. The second sentence is a dense enumeration of return categories, which packs information efficiently but relies on domain jargon such as 'review currentness' and 'bounded evidence starting points.'

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 read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is read, what is returned at a category level, identity semantics, and absence of side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with id and optional limits.

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 100% and every parameter already has a description. The description adds semantic mapping by tying pagination to 'saved membership,' relationLimit to 'real declared internal relations,' and dependencyLimit to 'direct outside-scope dependencies,' which enriches the raw schema fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one saved constellation by immutable ID from this configured vault.' This clearly differentiates it from list_constellations (listing) and get_concept (concept lookup), and highlights the immutable-ID scope.

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 for when the tool applies—reading a single saved constellation by immutable ID—but it never explicitly names alternatives such as list_constellations for enumeration or states when not to use this tool. The usage is therefore implied rather than explicitly routed.

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