get_access_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the function without disclosing read-only nature, permission requirements, or response format. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name, offering no additional behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, providing no additional context beyond the tool name and failing to add value 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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what 'details' entails, such as which fields are returned or any access control constraints. Given the simple one-parameter input, a bit more context would be expected, but it remains a basic get-by-id operation.

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 the 'id' parameter described as 'ID of the resource', so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter specifics, but high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get access request details' clearly states the tool retrieves details for a single access request, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_access_requests and create_access_request, though it lacks explicit mention of the ID parameter or any unique constraints.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_access_request or list_access_requests. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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