Get Bruno request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation that returns parsed YAML, and the includeSource parameter (described in the schema) adds transparency about optional raw-source output. It does not mention error behavior or permissions, but the read-only nature is explicit.

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 states the core action and result without repetition or filler. It earns its place and is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read tool with fully documented parameters, the description plus schema provides enough information for correct invocation. A brief note about when to prefer this over bruno_run or bruno_search_requests would make it complete, but nothing essential is missing for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'parsed YAML representation,' but the high schema coverage means the description does not need to compensate.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a Bruno OpenCollection request') and states the output format ('parsed YAML representation'). This distinguishes it from sibling list/search/run tools, making its purpose immediately clear.

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 itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bruno_run or bruno_search_requests. However, the parameter descriptions do provide useful context by explaining how to obtain valid collection and request identifiers from the sibling listing tools, so usage is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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