fmod_entity_singletonInstance

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a singleton instance but does not address failure modes (e.g., if the class is not a singleton, or if no instance exists), side effects (there are likely none), or any permissions required. The behavior is underspecified for an agent to use safely.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core information. However, it contains a duplicated sentence ('Returns the singleton ManagedObject instance of a particular entity type.' appears twice) which is unnecessary and slightly reduces efficiency. Still, it wastes minimal words overall.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks completeness regarding error conditions, assumptions, and relationship to sibling tools. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent, especially regarding singleton-specific semantics.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'className' with a description that includes examples ('Event', 'Bank', 'GroupTrack'). The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers. Thus, the parameter information is adequate but not enhanced by the description.

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 that it returns the singleton ManagedObject instance of a given entity type. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'singleton ManagedObject instance' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fmod_entity_findInstances which finds all instances, and fmod_entity_isSingleton which checks if a type is a singleton.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fmod_entity_findInstances or fmod_entity_isSingleton. It does not mention that the tool is only appropriate for singleton entity types, nor does it explain what happens if a non-singleton class name is provided. An agent could misuse this tool without explicit usage context.

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