bw_get_request

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. It also discloses what components are bundled (header, DTP info, process chain, message log). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately conveys the non-destructive, informational nature of the tool.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and bundled components, the second adds read-only nature and prerequisite. No redundant information; every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description adequately outlines the returned sections (header, DTP info, process chain, message log) and the source of the TSN. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., storage code causing partial results) or the output structure for raw vs text format, which is partially covered in parameter schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by specifying that request_tsn comes from bw_list_requests output, but does not add new meaning for format or storage beyond what the schema already describes.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'request', specifying that it provides 'full status analysis' bundling header, DTP info, process step chain, and message log. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the comprehensive single-call bundling, which is not available in other get tools like bw_get_dtp or bw_get_process_chain.

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 mentions the prerequisite that the request TSN comes from bw_list_requests output, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bw_get_dtp for detailed DTP info) or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the bundling description.

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