Read Bruno Request

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully discloses behavior. It mentions the same shape for .bru and .yml, the invisibility of on-disk format, and the 'notes' array for non-actionable fields. This is strong coverage, though it doesn't specify error handling or edge cases like missing files.

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?

Three sentences tightly package purpose, format normalization, usage context, and a noteworthy behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the operation scope, format, and use cases. It also hints at potential limitations (notes array) without overspecifying.

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%, but the description adds valuable guidance beyond the schema: using paths returned by create_request or list_requests due to lowercasing. This extra detail compensates and enriches the parameter understanding.

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 the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('single request file') and output ('structured JSON'), enumerating the exact fields included. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modify_request and create_request by being the read-only counterpart.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'before modify_request to see current state, and after create_request to confirm what was written.' This provides clear context and integrates with the tool's position among siblings.

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