wrike_get_approval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait, but the description does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any authorization requirements. 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence of six words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It clearly states the purpose, but it lacks information about the return value (e.g., full approval object) or potential errors like 404. Given no annotations or output schema, a bit more detail would enhance completeness, but it's not severely incomplete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for approvalId. The tool description adds little beyond restating that the ID identifies the approval, providing no additional syntax or meaning that the schema doesn't already convey.

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 'Get a specific approval by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('approval') with a clear modifier ('specific', 'by ID'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like wrike_list_approvals (list), wrike_update_approval (update), and wrike_delete_approval (delete).

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 implies usage when you have an approval ID and need a single approval, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like wrike_list_approvals or how to obtain the ID. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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