kaiten_get_sd_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a meaningful failure mode (405) and a workaround, which goes beyond a typical 'get by ID' description. It doesn't elaborate on return shape or error cases beyond 405, but for a simple read operation that is reasonable.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important fallback note is placed second for visibility. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: what the tool does, the required input, a known failure mode, and the recommended alternative. It could mention what the response contains, but that is not essential for calling the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter, request_id, with description 'Request ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents it.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('Service Desk request'), and identifier ('by ID'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from kaiten_list_sd_requests by focusing on individual retrieval rather than listing.

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 explicitly says the tool 'may return 405' and instructs to 'use kaiten_list_sd_requests and filter client-side' instead, naming the exact alternative and the condition that should trigger it. This is direct, actionable guidance.

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