get_entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains optional field filtering, the meaning of detailed=True, and provides concrete examples. It does not discuss error behavior or permissions, but for a simple read-oriented getter the core behavior is transparently described.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a compact Args section and three illustrative examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes the tool's behavior immediately scannable.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main usage patterns and return behavior reasonably well. It could be more explicit about the exact shape of the response for a basic state check, but the examples and detailed flag explanation make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 thoroughly. Each parameter is explained with type context and examples: entity_id is shown as 'light.living_room', fields as ['state', 'attr.brightness'], and detailed is described as returning all fields without filtering. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the state of a Home Assistant entity with optional field filtering.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_entities or search_entities_tool, which operate over collections rather than a single entity.

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 usage for retrieving a single entity's state, and examples clarify common calls, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_entities or get_entities_by_area, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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