innoslate_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds real behavior beyond them: a numeric ref can match several entities because numbers repeat, and every match is returned along with the documents it sits in. That multi-match/ambiguity disclosure is genuinely useful for an agent.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the payload description is front-loaded and the ref caveat follows. Slightly compressed phrasing ('the target's number and name') costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the return shape (entity plus all relations and containing documents). The single gap is the undocumented project_url parameter, which is minor for a 2-parameter tool.

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 carries the burden. It fully explains 'ref' (id or number, and the multi-match consequence), which is the important parameter, but 'project_url' is left entirely undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific resource and its full payload: 'One entity in full: text, labels, attributes, and every relation with the target's number and name.' An agent can distinguish it from retrieval-by-search siblings like innoslate_find. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the ref semantics (id vs number, multiple matches), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison against alternatives such as innoslate_find or innoslate_read_workspace. The agent must infer that this is the single-entity fetch tool.

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