Get Entry

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful information about the response contents, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, auth) are disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and return value without any redundant or extraneous text.

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-only get tool with strong annotations, the description covers the key output elements. There is no output schema, but for this simple case the description is adequate, though it omits potential edge-case behaviors like 'entry not found'.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to compensate. However, the description does not explain bundle_id or entry_id beyond their names, which are already visible in the schema. No guidance on format, constraints, or relationships between the parameters is provided.

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 tool fetches an entry and lists key contents (Markdown content, tag IDs, state, attachment metadata), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_entries or get_bundle. However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates on a single entry by ID, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like bundled_list_entries or bundled_search_entries. The description implies the general purpose but does not state exclusions or prerequisite context (e.g., needing an entry_id).

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