get_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it returns data, implying a read operation, but lacks detail about error behavior (e.g., version not found), authorization needs, or side effects. The single sentence is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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, efficient sentence that communicates core functionality without redundancy. It is front-loaded and achieves conciseness, though it could benefit from slight expansion on the return content.

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 the tool has 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks detail on the return format, what constitutes a 'changelog block,' and behavior for invalid input. It is minimally complete for a simple read tool but leaves gaps.

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% with a clear description of the 'version' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for a fully covered 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 'Returns the complete changelog block of a specific version,' specifying the action, resource, and scope. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_current_version' or 'search_changelog' by indicating a targeted retrieval of a full block for a given version.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'preview_entry' or 'search_changelog.' There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context that helps the agent decide which tool is appropriate.

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