te_get_promote_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get status' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or if it has any side effects. Given the lack of annotations, more detail is needed.

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 and is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not front-load the most critical information (e.g., that this is a status check for a promotion request) in a structured way. While not verbose, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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 no output schema, two parameters without descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what the returned status looks like, possible status values, or any context about how this tool fits into the promotion workflow. This is insufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter details. It fails to explain the purpose of the 'raw' and 'request_id' parameters or provide context beyond what the schema structure shows. This leaves the agent without clarity on required inputs.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'status for a Tripwire element version promotion request'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like te_get_status (likely overall status) and te_get_version (version details). However, it could be improved by explicitly mentioning that the status is retrieved using a request_id.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as te_promote_versions or te_list_versions. It does not indicate prerequisites, such as needing a valid request_id from a previous promotion attempt.

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