yaaif_mcp_tool_get

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what happens for invalid or missing ids, whether authentication is required, or whether any remote MCP server is contacted. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 no redundant wording. It states the action, object, and retrieval criterion efficiently.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return shape, error behavior, and relationship to similar get/list tools unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 single 'tool_id' parameter. It only says 'by id', which adds no detail about what kind of id is expected, how to obtain it, or its format. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not enrich it.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('one external MCP tool'), and the retrieval key ('by id'). It also differentiates itself from sibling listing tools like yaaif_mcp_tools_list by emphasizing 'one' tool.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yaaif_mcp_tools_list, yaaif_mcp_server_get, or yaaif_local_tool_get. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or recommended sibling tools.

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