get_entry

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context that the return payload varies by entry type (note, email, completed-task), which is not in the annotations. It doesn't add extra disclosures like rate limits, but for a read-only fetch that's acceptable. Score reflects added value beyond annotation.

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 three tight sentences: first states the core action, second explains the variable payload, third gives usage context and alternatives. It is front-loaded, without redundant phrases or filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description's breakdown of the return payload by entry type is crucial and provided. It also covers when to use the tool and points to alternatives. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly address the 'embed' parameter's effect on the response, but the schema already documents it. Overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple read 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?

The schema already describes the 'embed' parameter with valid tokens, and the 'id' parameter is typed as integer with range. The description confirms id is numeric but doesn't explain the effect of 'embed' beyond the schema's own description. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds minimal new semantics, so it meets the baseline without enhancing.

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 verb (fetch/single entry) and resource (timeline entry by numeric id), and distinguishes from list_*_entries by focusing on a single item and full content. It also names related sibling tools for modification and deletion, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use it ('when you have an entry id from one of the list_*_entries calls and want the full content') and names alternatives for modification and deletion (update_entry and delete_entry). This gives clear routing and exclusions.

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