Tool That Access Request

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

Annotations provide significant behavioral information: readOnlyHint=false (implies mutation), openWorldHint=true (handles unknown inputs), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—it doesn't explain what 'access' entails operationally, potential side effects, or any constraints like rate limits. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 extremely concise at just three words ('Access the request.'), with no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core idea, though this brevity contributes to its vagueness in other dimensions.

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 tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, annotations provide behavioral hints, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks context on what the tool actually does, usage scenarios, or output expectations. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, but the description should still clarify purpose and guidelines better to be fully helpful.

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 'username' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain why the username is needed, how it relates to the request, or any contextual details about parameter usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Access the request' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'tool_that_access_request' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of request is being accessed, what resource is involved, or what 'access' means in this context (read, modify, submit?). While it includes a verb ('access') and resource ('request'), it remains vague about the actual purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'get_called_tools', 'get_time', and 'get_weather', but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from them or in what context it should be selected. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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