entroly_retrieve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains lazy resolution for source paths and the listing behavior with no argument. It does not disclose potential errors or side effects, but the behavior is reasonable for a retrieval tool.

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 concise with a clear first line and structured argument explanation. It contains no redundant information, though it could be slightly more streamlined by removing the 'Args:' header effect.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the main use cases and parameter details. Missing edge cases like invalid handles or error conditions, but overall adequate for a simple tool.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'source_or_handle' as a source path or content-addressed handle, and notes the default is empty. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's title and type.

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 retrieves exact source content omitted by compressed context, with specific use cases (handle, source path, listing). The verb 'retrieve' matches the tool name, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'recover_receipt_omission' or 'explain_receipt_omission'.

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 explains when to use the tool (to recover omitted content) and provides three distinct modes of operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, which would improve guidance.

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