get_saved_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the payload shape (method, URL, headers, body) and flagging the {{variables}} dependency, telling the agent the request may require variables to be resolved first.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the scope ('One saved request') and then enumerates the returned fields. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return format, the description is nearly sufficient: it states scope, contents, and the variable dependency. Only the routing guidance versus sibling read tools is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'name' (including the notable dual meaning of variable name or saved request name). The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (a saved request) and it enumerates exactly what is returned: method, URL, headers, body, and needed variables. The singular 'One saved request in full' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_saved_requests, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the fetch-a-single-request tool because it returns one request 'in full'. There is no statement of when to prefer it over list_saved_requests, get_history_entry, or export_curl, and no prerequisites given.

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