get_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying what kind of payload is returned depending on entry type, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then gives return-value detail, usage context, and sibling alternatives, each sentence earning its place. The enumeration of payload types is relevant because there is no output schema to communicate this otherwise.

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, the description compensates by explaining return payload variations for different entry types. It also covers when to use the tool and which sibling to choose for mutations, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 50%, so the description carries some burden. It does clarify that id is a numeric timeline-entry id and that ids come from list_*_entries calls, which adds context beyond the schema. However, the embed parameter is not mentioned in the description, and the id semantics are only lightly supplemented beyond its integer type.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single timeline entry by its numeric id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that it returns full content for notes, emails, and completed tasks, and contrasts with update_entry and delete_entry.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when you have an entry id from one of the list_*_entries calls and want the full content.' It also identifies alternatives and their use cases: use update_entry to modify, delete_entry to delete. This leaves no ambiguity about routing.

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