get_scout_detail

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's read-only. The description adds 'detailed information' but does not disclose further behavioral traits (e.g., response size, permissions, data freshness). With annotations covering safety, the description adds limited context.

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?

One clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though a bit more detail on 'detailed information' would not hurt conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should describe what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., fields returned). It does not, leaving the agent guessing about return structure. This is a gap for a tool that retrieves a single resource.

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% (scout_id documented as UUID). The description does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema gives; it is adequate for a single obvious parameter.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific scout,' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('scout'), and distinguishes well from sibling tools like create_scout, delete_scout, and edit_scout which are mutations, and list_scouts which lists summaries.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives is provided. The description simply states what it does; implicit differentiation from siblings exists by name, but no direct advice for choosing this over, say, get_scout_updates or list_scouts.

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