Get Hermes API response

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile well. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it mentions 'writing redacted receipts' as a side effect, which is behavioral information the annotations don't convey, and it clarifies this is a network call to the configured Hermes server. With strong annotations, this is solid supplemental disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and verb, and includes a meaningful side-effect disclosure ('writing redacted receipts') without bloat. Compact and effective, though the phrasing 'Typed GET...wrapper' is a bit jargon-heavy and could be clearer for the agent.

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 single-parameter GET with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), an output schema present, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It addresses the retrieval purpose and the redacted-receipt side effect. It could note whether receipts are a logging artifact or a returned artifact, and how redaction works, but for a read operation this is adequate.

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% with the response_id parameter fully documented ('Stored response id to retrieve') including pattern, min/max length constraints. The description itself doesn't add parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of the underlying endpoint URL implicitly clarifies the parameter maps to the path segment {id}.

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 (retrieves), resource (stored response from Hermes API server), and the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/responses/{id}). It specifies it's a 'Typed wrapper' indicating a structured abstraction. It's slightly distinct from siblings like hermes_api_runs_get or hermes_api_docs_read since it targets the /responses resource specifically.

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 says it retrieves a stored response but does not state when to use this versus alternatives like hermes_api_runs_get, hermes_api_jobs_get, or hermes_api_chat_completions. No scenario guidance, no exclusions, no note on how a response_id is obtained (presumably from hermes_api_responses_create). The 'writing redacted receipts' side effect is mentioned but not explained in terms of usage context.

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