get_stored_response

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Retrieve') but does not mention any side effects, error handling, auth requirements, or return format. It also does not mention that the response can be filtered by line numbers, which is a behavioral capability not disclosed. The description is minimal and adds no depth beyond the action itself.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. The key action and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could have been enriched with sibling differentiation without sacrificing conciseness.

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 is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It does not mention the optional start_line and end_line parameters, which allow partial retrieval of the stored response. It also fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_stored_response_with_markdown', leaving the agent uncertain about which output format to expect. With no output schema and no additional context, the description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (response_id, start_line, end_line) with descriptions. The tool description adds nothing beyond identifying response_id as the lookup key. It does not explain the relationship between start_line and end_line or their purpose, though the schema does. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the description's contribution is neutral, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Retrieve' and the resource 'stored HTTP response', and identifies the key parameter 'by its ID'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_stored_response_with_markdown', which likely serves the same core purpose with a different output format. The purpose is clear but not uniquely distinguished.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_stored_response_with_markdown'. No context is given about when line parameters should be used or when this tool is preferred over the markdown variant. The description offers no usage scenarios or exclusions.

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