get_tool_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a specific tool request by ID' without mentioning read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), permission requirements, or what fields are returned. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description adds no substantive behavioral context beyond that.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or redundant detail, making it highly efficient.

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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description is minimally adequate: the parameter is fully documented, and an output schema exists to define the return value. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and explicit usage guidance, which leaves minor gaps in the complete context an agent would need.

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%, as the single 'id' parameter is described as 'ID of the tool request to retrieve.' The tool description's 'by ID' adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('tool request'), and the scope ('by ID'). This distinguishes it immediately from sibling tools like list_tool_requests (which lists all) and get_tool_proposal (a different resource).

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when a specific request ID is known, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. It does not name sibling tools like list_tool_requests, so guidance is only 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.