get_cloudforce_one_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get ... details' and does not mention required scope, response format, permissions, or error behavior. It does not contradict any annotations because none exist, but it offers minimal transparency beyond saying it is a read operation.

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 sentence with no filler words, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it reads more like a label than a helpful tool definition; a clarifying phrase about the resource type or response would improve it without sacrificing conciseness.

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 schema fully documents the two required parameters, so the agent knows how to invoke the tool, and the operation is a simple get-by-ID. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what 'request details' means or what the response will contain, and it does not disambiguate the request entity from related entities in the sibling list. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'account_id' and 'request_id' already described as 'The account ID' and 'The request ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the high schema coverage means the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Cloudforce One request details'), so an agent can tell this is a retrieval operation for a single request. However, it largely restates the tool name and does not clarify what a 'request' is relative to similar sibling tools like get_cloudforce_one_event or get_cloudforce_one_query, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no sibling tools or exclusions. With dozens of similar get_* tools in the sibling list, an agent has no explicit basis for choosing this one over, say, get_cloudforce_one_event or get_cloudforce_one_query.

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