fmod_entity_document

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation (returns a string) but does not mention any side effects, permissions, performance implications, or error handling. The behavioral traits are minimal and leave significant gaps.

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 contains two identical sentences, indicating redundancy. It also includes a technical note '[method · entity.document]'. While the content is short, the duplication makes it less concise than it could be.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the format of the returned string (e.g., JSON, plain text), error conditions, or whether the entity must exist. The description leaves the agent with unanswered questions about the tool's full behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter 'className'. The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 it returns a string describing the entity with properties and relationships. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('string describing the entity'). However, the description is duplicated and does not differentiate from sibling tools like fmod_entity_properties or fmod_ManagedObject_document, which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without giving context on scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction for appropriate usage.

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