accelo_get_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how missing IDs are handled, or any rate limits—only the basic fetch intent.

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 short and front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args list. Every line serves a purpose, and there is no filler.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers the essential parameter semantics and action. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits useful context such as the likely return shape or error behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting both parameters: id as the request ID and fields as additional fields to return. However, the 'fields' parameter remains vague because no format (comma-separated list, field names, etc.) is given.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('request') and adds 'single ... by ID' to distinguish it from list_requests and other request operations. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to avoid the list variants.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Get a single request by ID' rather than stated with when/when-not conditions. An agent can infer that this is the tool for retrieving one request when the ID is known, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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