Get API Request Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing that sensitive data is redacted, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. It also mentions the command bus, but that's minor. No contradiction.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words, and it includes the key detail about redaction.

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 has an output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main purpose and the redaction behavior. It could mention the includeBody parameter's effect, but the schema already describes that. Overall, it's sufficient for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns a saved API request with redaction of sensitive fields, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_requests or send_request. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the 'get' action or the resource type beyond 'API request', but the title and name make that clear.

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 usage for retrieving a saved request, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like list_requests or get_history. It doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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