get_bruno_request_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It states the tool gets details and raw content but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what errors may occur (e.g., request not found), the structure of the returned data, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for an agent.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core function without redundancy. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what 'structured details' includes, the format of 'raw content', or any prerequisites. The lack of an output schema increases the need for description to clarify return value semantics, which it fails to do.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters, with descriptions for both 'request_name' and 'project_path', including an example for request_name. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 identifies the action (get), the resource (specific Bruno request file), and the type of output (structured details and raw content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bruno_requests (listing all) and run_bruno_request (executing), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for a single request while list_bruno_requests is for listing, or that run_bruno_request executes rather than retrieves details. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself offers no usage directives.

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