Get Entry

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the response structure (uuid, locale, published_at, fields object) and clarifies critical behaviors: fields are custom and not nested under 'data', and relations are expanded into nested objects/arrays rather than bare UUIDs. This adequately informs the agent about the tool's output.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-loaded with purpose and followed by critical response details. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description covers core behavior and response format well. It could mention error handling or default behavior for optional params, but the existing detail is sufficient for agent usage.

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%, so the schema already describes all 7 parameters. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema, mainly clarifying the fields structure. It does not elaborate on parameter-specific nuances (e.g., state values, locale format).

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 verb ('get'), resource ('a single content entry'), and identifier ('by UUID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_entries and get_entry_version.

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 for fetching a single entry by UUID but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_entries or get_entry_version. No 'when not' or contextual exclusions are given.

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