get_request_details

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed information and specifically available_actions, which is crucial for the subsequent submit_decision step. The read-only nature is implied by 'Fetch' but not explicitly stated, and there is no mention of permissions or errors.

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, with three short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third explains the parameter. No waste.

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 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The mention of available_actions provides enough context for the agent to understand its role in the approval workflow.

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 only parameter, request_id, is explained in the description as a 'UUID of the pending approval request', adding format and semantic context beyond the bare schema type. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Fetches detailed request information' and specifies the key components (audit history, context payload, available_actions). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_process_details and submit_decision by naming the specific resource and its role in the approval workflow.

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 strong usage guidance with 'Always call this before submit_decision' and explains why (to know valid action values). However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, such as when a simple list would suffice via list_pending_requests.

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