opspilot_get_request

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only action, but it does not disclose error handling, whether the request is polled or blocking, or the nature of the returned 'status'. This is minimal but sufficient for a simple status lookup, though lacking depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, effectively conveying the core functionality. It earns its place entirely without 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema or annotations), and the description conveys the basic action. However, because no output schema exists, the description should have explained the return value format or any additional expectations, and it does not. It also does not define 'broker request' in context, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mentioning 'by request ID', clarifying that the sole parameter `request_id` identifies the broker request. Since there is only one parameter and its purpose is stated, it provides adequate semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get the status') and resource ('broker request') with the specific identifier ('by request ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on hosts, services, logs, and docker operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when you need a broker request's status by ID) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention situations where another tool like opspilot_status might be more appropriate, nor does it state any prerequisites.

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