Get Column Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific information returned (name, color, position, card count) but does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or other runtime traits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 zero wasted words. It opens with the verb and resource, then lists the returned fields. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only operation, the definition is nearly complete: annotations cover safety, the schema documents all parameters and where to obtain them, and the description explains what the tool returns in lieu of an output schema. The only gap is the lack of an explicit pointer to fizzy_get_columns for list-style use cases, which is minor.

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 100%, with all three parameters already documented in detail including examples and pointers to source tools (e.g., 'Get available column IDs from fizzy_get_columns'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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), a specific resource (a specific workflow column), and enumerates the returned attributes (name, color, position, card count). The word 'specific' combined with the singular name distinguishes it from the plural sibling fizzy_get_columns, but it never explicitly names that alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage context is implied — an agent can infer this tool is for retrieving details about one column once a column_id is known, as opposed to listing columns. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to fizzy_get_columns as the alternative for listing all columns.

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