elog_get_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it returns untruncated body text (a notable distinction from truncated list results), threading info (reply_to/in_reply_to), and the canonical web URL. This directly informs the agent of valuable return characteristics beyond a bare 'reads an entry.'

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact Args section and a concise Returns section. The structure is clean and scannable, though the Returns paragraph is slightly redundant with the opening line's mention of attributes, body, and attachments.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description is substantially complete: both parameters are explained, return value structure is disclosed, and the output schema exists to formalize the record shape. Missing only minor context like authentication prerequisites, which is typically not tool-specific for a read operation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains logbook as 'Name of the logbook containing the entry' and entry_id as 'Numeric message ID of the entry.' Both parameters are adequately documented in prose despite the empty schema titles, with no enums or nesting concerns.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one logbook entry in full'), and lists what makes it distinct from siblings: all attributes, complete body, and attachments. The 'in full' phrasing clearly differentiates it from the list/summary tools in the sibling set like elog_get_recent_entries.

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 this is the right tool when you need a complete single entry rather than a summary or search result, but it never explicitly names alternatives or gives conditions for choosing between them. The 'in full' contrast versus elog_search and elog_get_recent_entries is implied, not stated. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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