dxf_get_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the handle format convention but says nothing about behavior when the handle is missing/unknown, permissions, or performance on large drawings. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a labeled usage block, parameter note and runnable example. No filler sentences; every line either routes the agent or pins a parameter format.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both required parameters plus their usage ordering are covered. The only gap is failure modes for invalid handles, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'path' is named and 'handle' is qualified as hexadecimal with a concrete example ('2A3') plus a full call example. It stops short of 5 only because path's format/expected file location is not clarified.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Devolve os detalhes completos de uma entidade do DXF') and the lookup key ('pelo handle'). This distinguishes it from broader siblings like dxf_query, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_entity or dxf_read_attributes.

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 'QUANDO USAR' block gives explicit ordering guidance ('depois de dxf_query') and the intent ('ver geometria/atributos de uma entidade específica'), naming the sibling that precedes it. It lacks when-not conditions or alternatives among the create/query/modify siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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