read_entry_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the side effect 'auto-marks as read', which is critical for a read operation. No other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, error cases) are mentioned, but the output schema covers return structure, and the side effect is the most important extra behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the primary action and a key side effect. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one simple parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the operation (get full content) and the side effect (auto-mark as read). The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere. No gaps remain.

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 100% for the single parameter (entry_id is described as 'Entry ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full content of an entry'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_entries_tool (which likely returns summaries) and mark_read_tool (which only marks as read). The parenthetical 'auto-marks as read' adds precise scope.

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 phrase 'full content' implies the tool is for retrieving complete entry data, contrasting with list-type tools. The auto-mark behavior signals a side effect to consider, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use mark_read_tool if you do not want to fetch content'), so it falls short of a 5.

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