yaaif_local_tool_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (name, description, input_schema, family), which is useful, but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, possible side effects, or behavior when the requested tool does not exist. It provides minimal transparency beyond the return structure.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately short, but perhaps too terse to cover essential context. It earns high marks for efficiency, though the lack of parameter clarification prevents a perfect score.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of the 'name' parameter, does not mention error handling or edge cases, and offers no usage context. An agent could not confidently invoke this tool correctly without additional inference.

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?

The schema has a single required string parameter 'name' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explicitly explain that 'name' is the identifier of the tool to fetch; the parenthetical lists 'name' as a return field, which could confuse the agent about the input. The description does not add meaning beyond the raw schema field name.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one local tool definition'), and enumerates the returned fields (name, description, input_schema, family). It clearly distinguishes from the list variant (yaaif_local_tools_list) by specifying 'one', but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus fetching a list or calling a tool. The description does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or why one would choose this over yaaif_local_tools_list. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'one'.

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