Get Help Requests

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 disclose useful traits: results are paged, the list can include the service catalogue, and detail mode returns form values and comments. It says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or result ordering, leaving a gap for a no-annotation 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?

A single semicolon-joined sentence, front-loaded with the resource name and immediately followed by the two-mode distinction. Dense and efficient, though the compressed phrasing borders on telegraphic.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers both modes (list with optional catalogue, detail with form values/comments) for a 4-param, 0-required tool. Only the absence of any safety/permission context 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 description coverage is 100% (page, per_page, request_id, include_services are all documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description restates the request_id override behavior and the paged nature but adds no syntax or defaults beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Names the resource concretely (Campus Help Centre requestable services + the user's help requests) and distinguishes two operating modes: list vs. single-request detail. The implied verb 'get' plus the named resource is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_passes or preview_outpass.

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 the mode switch — call without request_id for the paged list, with request_id for one request's detail — which is genuine usage guidance. It stops short of stating when this tool should be chosen over related tools or any preconditions, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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