Get Entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the ability to specify 'expand' for attachments and 'fields' for additional data, which hints at response shaping. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like default fields returned, pagination, or error conditions, but given the annotation, descriptive value is adequate.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the core action, and the description is appropriately sized for a straightforward getter tool. No redundant fluff; every word earns its place.

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 complexity (4 params, simple getter), output schema exists, and annotations indicate read-only, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't list return fields, but output schema covers that. Missing a bit: mention that entity_id can be shortId is included, but some usage context (e.g., differences between id types) is minimal. Still sufficient.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter (entity_type, entity_id, expand, fields). The description echoes schema for entity_type but adds that id can be numeric shortId, which is valuable. Baseline 3 is raised because the description clarifies shortId usage and explains expand/fields beyond their schema descriptions.

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?

Description states specific verb+resource: 'Get a Yandex Tracker project, portfolio, or goal by id or shortId.' It clearly lists the three entity types, distinguishing from sibling tools like queue_get_metadata or issue_get. The scope is explicit.

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 when to use: when you need a project, portfolio, or goal by ID/shortId. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context with sibling tools (entity_get_events, entity_create) makes usage clear. Some guidance about when not to use (e.g., for issues use issue_get) would elevate it, but it's not misleading.

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