request_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it is a read operation ('Get'), but does not describe behavior for missing IDs, return format, pagination, auth, or rate limits. For a simple get, this is minimal but still lacking 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with zero fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, it fails to state what the returned journal entry looks like or error/edge behavior. The sibling tool context provides some inference, but the description alone is incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the response.

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 0% for the only parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning that 'id' is a journal entry ID, which is useful, but it does not provide the ID format or how to obtain it. With a single parameter, this partial compensation earns a mid-score.

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') and resource ('WireMock request journal entry'), with a clear scope ('by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like request_list (which likely lists all entries) by focusing on a single entry retrieval.

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 an ID is available, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like request_list, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. It relies on the parameter name to convey intent, so guidance is only implicit.

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