get_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys read-only retrieval and the return shape ('full markdown'), but it doesn't disclose behavior for missing files, ambiguous bare filenames, or path resolution roots. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope, with no filler or redundancy.

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 retrieval tool, the definition plus the schema specify the input and the returned content ('full markdown'), which is enough for basic invocation. It doesn't fully specify edge-case behavior, but that is a modest gap at this complexity.

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%, and the schema already explains the path parameter with an example. The description mostly restates the same addressing idea and adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond that.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('full markdown of one journal file'), and the addressing method ('by relative path or filename'). This clearly distinguishes it from the list, search, and write sibling tools.

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?

It clearly implies when to use it: when you need the complete markdown of a single known journal entry addressed by path or filename. It doesn't explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives like search_journal, but the retrieval context is clear.

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