agentgate_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits like read versus write, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description only states it retrieves status, but does not clarify if the call is idempotent, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or any authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no extraneous text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'status' means, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. For a retrieval tool, return value context is critical, and this is missing.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Request ID'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain the format or source of the ID. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter.

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 'Get the current status of an approval request by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of an approval request'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like agentgate_list (which likely lists requests) and agentgate_request (which likely creates a request). The scope is well-defined.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the verb 'Get' implies retrieval of a single item, there is no guidance on when to use agentgate_list over this, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., request must exist). The context is implied but not explicit.

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