mt_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('取得します' - get) without mentioning permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with a content management system.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal 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 complexity of retrieving entry details (likely from a CMS), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what 'details' include, authentication needs, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (siteId and entryId) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 '記事の詳細を取得します' (Get entry details) states a clear verb ('取得します' - get) and resource ('記事の詳細' - entry details), but it's vague about what constitutes 'details' and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like mt_get_content_data or mt_get_page, which might also retrieve content-related information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like mt_list_entries (which likely lists entries) and mt_get_content_data (which might retrieve content data), the description offers no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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