entries_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the response depends on the entry type and that filters apply, and it provides an example request. However, it does not mention pagination specifics, authentication, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 well-organized with a clear lead sentence, an example, and categorized filter details. However, it repeats 'Get War Room entries' twice in the opening, which is slightly redundant. Still, every other part 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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain response formats beyond noting that the response depends on the entry type. The example only covers the request body, not the response structure. Given the tool's complexity, this is a notable gap.

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 already describes parameters, and the description adds an example request body showing usage of `id` and `filter` with nested fields. It also mentions filtering by timestamp, ID, and tags, helping the agent map abstract concepts to actual parameters.

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 the tool's function: 'Get War Room entries' for a specific incident or alert, with filtering options and entry type selection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like incidents_get_incidents and alerts_get_alerts by focusing on War Room entries.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (for a specific incident or alert) and describes filtering and entry type selection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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