bw_get_request

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

With no annotations, the description responsibly declares the tool is read-only, bundles multiple aspects into one call, and describes the output contents. This gives the agent full understanding of behavior without side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded: 'Full status analysis of one load request in a single call.' Every sentence serves a 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?

The description covers what is returned (four components) and the read-only nature. Since there is no output schema, this is adequate. It could mention error cases, but for a read tool it's reasonably complete.

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 the description adds value by explaining the provenance of request_tsn ('from bw_list_requests output'). It does not detail format or storage beyond schema, but overall it's helpful.

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 it provides 'full status analysis of one load request' and lists specific components (header, DTP info, process step chain, message log). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bw_list_requests (which lists requests) by requiring a TSN from that output.

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?

It mentions the request TSN comes from bw_list_requests output, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over other get tools (e.g., bw_get_dtp) or provide exclusions. Still, the context is clear.

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