laserfiche_entry_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this by stating the success return type (`EntryDetail`) and a structured failure object with error slugs (`not_found`, `auth_failed`). It does not elaborate on permission requirements or the exact cause of `auth_failed`, but the fetch semantics and error contract provide solid transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: operation and returned fields first, then exclusions, then return/error behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what metadata is returned, what is deliberately not returned, and what the failure shape looks like. It leaves minor gaps around authentication prerequisites, but the `auth_failed` error slug already signals that authentication is a relevant concern.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It ties `entry_id` to the entry being fetched and echoes it in the error response, giving basic relational meaning, but it does not define where the ID comes from, its format beyond integer, or any special constraints. The single required integer parameter remains mostly self-explanatory from the schema title and tool name.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one entry's metadata' and enumerates the fields returned (name, type, path, template, page count). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying it does NOT return field values or document content, which makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 negative usage guidance: it does not return field values or document contentprint, and names the tools to use for those needs. However, it does not explicitly position this tool against the other entry lookup/search siblings, such as by-path lookups or searches, so routing is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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