get_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses filter behavior (status, media_status, days, limit, show_all) and return contents ('titles, requesters, request status, and media availability'), giving concrete expectations. It does not explicitly state read-only, but 'Get'/'Lists' and the return description make side effects absent.

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 and structured into a purpose sentence, a usage example, and a clearly labeled Args/Returns block. Each line adds information; the example is the only non-essential addition but supports usage guidance.

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 description covers all five parameters, defaults, and return contents, making the tool usable without the schema or annotations. Minor ambiguities (e.g., exact interpretation of 'days' and default limit vs. 'all requests') keep it from being fully complete, but it is strong overall.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining every parameter: status values ('pending' or 'approved'), media_status values ('available', 'processing', 'unavailable', or 'failed'), days as last-N-days, limit max with default 20, and show_all ignoring limit. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Get media requests with user information' and adds 'Lists all requests showing who requested what and when,' which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_user_requests by emphasizing user information attached to all requests.

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 provides an explicit use-case example ('Perfect for queries like list all requests from the last week and who requested them') that signals when this tool fits. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so guidelines are clear but not exhaustive.

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