get_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool returns 'full content' with examples (note body, email subject + body), but does not disclose read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action.

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 one sentence that immediately states the purpose and provides example return content. No extraneous words, well-structured and efficiently communicates the tool's core function.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns with concrete examples. For a simple fetch operation, this is sufficiently complete, though a full schema would be ideal.

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 50% (only 'embed' has a schema description). The tool description adds value for the 'id' parameter by clarifying it is numeric, but it does not mention 'embed' at all. Thus, it partially compensates but does not fully cover all parameters.

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'), resource ('single timeline entry'), and identifier method ('by its numeric ID'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_entries by specifying singleton retrieval.

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 implies use when a specific numeric ID is known, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_entries for multiple entries) or when not to use this tool. No exclusionary language is present.

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