strapi_get_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds a version-specific identifier detail, but does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the entry is not found, or any error/edge-case behavior. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the obvious 'get' semantics.

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 that directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured and efficiently communicates the key information needed to understand the tool's function.

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?

For a simple get tool, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the identifier parameter, but it does not explain the return value, error behavior, or how to determine which Strapi version is in use. Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could provide more context to fully support the agent, but the core purpose is still understandable.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, but the documentIdOrId parameter is undocumented. The description adds meaning to this parameter by clarifying it should be a documentId in Strapi 5 or an id in Strapi 4, effectively compensating for the gap and providing valuable version-aware 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 action 'Get' and the resource 'one Strapi entry', and further specifies the identifier format based on Strapi version, which distinguishes it from list_entries and other sibling tools. The purpose is unambiguous even without reading the schema.

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 implies use for retrieving a single entry by ID, distinguishing from list_entries which retrieves multiple. It also provides version-specific guidance on which identifier to use (documentId in Strapi 5, id in Strapi 4), but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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