get_postman_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication, or output format. It only says 'get', implying read, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or whether multiple results can be returned. The absence of this critical information despite zero annotations is a significant gap.

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, well-structured sentence of 13 words that efficiently conveys purpose and key distinction. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action.

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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains search modes and scope. However, without an output schema, the agent might need to know the response structure, which is not addressed.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (name, path) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining that they are alternative search modes (by partial name or exact path) and by scoping the result to exclude related docs. This goes beyond the schema, so a score above the baseline 3 is warranted.

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 'Get a Postman request by partial name or exact API path (without related docs)' clearly states the action (get a request), the resources (Postman request), and the search criteria (partial name or exact path). It distinguishes itself by excluding related docs, which is relevant given the sibling 'get_linked_postman_request'.

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 this tool: when you need a Postman request without related documentation, by name or path. It differentiates from alternatives that may include docs, but does not explicitly name siblings or state when not to use.

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