get_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the set of returned properties, which is largely redundant given an output schema exists, and says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown handle. Adequate but thin against an already-covered safety profile.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, then a labeled when-to-use block, then parameter format and example. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only getter with an output schema and safety annotations, this is nearly complete: purpose, sequencing, and parameter format are all present. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it specifies the handle is a hexadecimal string and gives a concrete example ("2F1A"). That is meaningful added semantics beyond the bare 'handle' property title.

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 resource and scope: full properties of ONE entity retrieved by handle, and enumerates the returned aspects (geometry, color, linetype, block attributes). The emphasis on 'UMA entidade' cleanly separates it from the plural query_entities sibling.

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' section explicitly names the alternative tools (query_entities/read_block_attributes) and the condition under which this tool is chosen: inspecting one specific item after a broader query. Nothing is left to inference.

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