signavio_get_dictionary_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get a specific dictionary entry by ID'), making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 the complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., entry details like name, definition, or metadata), potential errors, or how it fits into the broader context of dictionary management with siblings like 'signavio_update_dictionary_entry'. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'entryId' clearly documented as 'The dictionary entry ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics.

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 'Get' and the resource 'dictionary entry by ID', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'signavio_get_dictionary_category' or 'signavio_get_model', which also retrieve specific resources by ID, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this exact tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for retrieving a single entry after searching with 'signavio_search_dictionary' or as a follow-up to listing entries, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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