entroly_retrieve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the different behaviors (exact historical vs lazy resolution vs listing), but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. The behavior is clear, but additional safety context would improve 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose. The subsequent paragraphs elaborate on usage and parameters without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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's single optional parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: three modes of operation, what each argument does, and the listing behavior. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully explains the parameter 'source_or_handle' as 'Source path or content-addressed ``ccr:...`` handle.' It also explains how the parameter affects behavior, adding significant meaning beyond the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve exact source content omitted by compressed context.' It specifies the resource (source content) and the action (retrieve), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on omitted content retrieval using handles or source paths.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each argument: handle for exact historical recovery, source path for latest version, and no argument to list CCR entries. It implies appropriate contexts but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.

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