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 for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Read'), but does not disclose any additional behaviors (e.g., authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the entry must exist). The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise, with only two short sentences and a compact Args list. Every element serves a purpose, and the key action is front-loaded. Zero unnecessary content.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter semantics. However, it omits contextual details like what constitutes an 'analysis entry' or how this differs from 'list_entries' in terms of data returned.

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?

Parameter documentation coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. The 'Args' section adds context beyond the schema (e.g., 'Project name or UUID' and default behavior), but only marginally. The schema already shows defaults and types, so the added value is limited.

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 explicitly states 'Read the full content of an analysis entry,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_entries' (which lists entries) and 'get_belief' (which retrieves beliefs).

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 use when the full content of an entry is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'list_entries' instead). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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