get_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; "Get" does imply a read-only operation and the parenthetical discloses that linked artifact references are included in the response, which is genuine added context. It still says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown, whether access is scoped, or how large an entry can be, which matters for an unannotated tool.

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?

One short sentence with the action and key front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical is the only extra clause and it carries real information.

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 read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level (entry plus artifact reference when linked) and how it is addressed. Missing error/not-found behavior and any notion of what a vault entry contains keeps it from being fully complete.

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% and the single parameter is documented as "Entry ID", so the schema already does the work. The description only restates that lookup is by ID and adds no format or sourcing hints for the identifier, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Get a vault entry by ID" states a specific verb and resource with the retrieval key, which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as get_entry_graph, get_context_bundle, or vault_mem_get, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 phrase "by ID" implies a prerequisite but the description never states when to choose this over list_entry_versions, get_entry_graph, or vault_mem_get. No exclusions, no alternative routing, nothing beyond the bare retrieval action.

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