get_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does describe the return payload well (properties, brush list with bounds and face count), but it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe error behavior for invalid indexes.

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 a single well-structured sentence with no filler. The subject and scope are front-loaded, and every phrase adds relevant information about what the tool returns.

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 two-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return content. It could explicitly mention read-only behavior or invalid-index handling, but these are minor gaps given the straightforward nature of the operation and the schema's clarity.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 the tool retrieves full detail for a single entity, including all properties and brush data. This distinguishes it from list_entities and other entity-related siblings by emphasizing depth and per-entity scope.

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 conveys clear context: use this when you need comprehensive detail for one entity rather than a list. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one entity' scope and schema reference to list_entities imply the correct usage pattern.

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