get_entry

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('gets') and adds context about stable ID format, but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. Lacks some behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences only: first states purpose, second gives usage guideline. Concise, front-loaded, no wasted words.

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 a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, and the ID format. Could be slightly more specific about what metadata is returned, but the second sentence clarifies it returns metadata.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description and example for the 'id' parameter. The tool description reinforces the format ('ID estable (site:url)') and adds context about stability, adding value 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?

Clearly states the tool gets the complete record ('ficha completa') of an OnMind document by stable ID. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying usage after search_content and before read_document.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Úsalo tras search_content para ver metadatos antes de leer el cuerpo' (use it after search_content to view metadata before reading the body), providing a clear workflow and when to use this tool vs alternatives like read_document.

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