Read Entry Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the single most important non-obvious trait: reading auto-marks the entry as read, a mutation side effect overlapping with mark_read_tool. It omits auth requirements, error behavior for missing/invalid IDs, and whether the mark is reversible.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the primary action and appending the side effect in a parenthetical. Nothing is padded or restated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key side effect. For a one-parameter read tool the coverage is nearly sufficient, with only error/permission behavior left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema documents entry_id as an integer with a minimum of 1, and the description adds nothing further about ID format or where to obtain it.

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 and resource ('Get full content of an entry'), which implicitly distinguishes it from list_entries_tool and search_entries_tool by its single-entry full-content scope. It does not explicitly name siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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 parenthetical hints at a side effect but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus list_entries_tool or search_entries_tool, nor when-not to call it if the agent only wants to preview an entry. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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