gsa_node_connected_ent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation by saying 'Return,' but does not state whether it is safe, requires permissions, has side effects, or how results are ordered or limited.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, it is arguably too terse given the tool's two undocumented parameters and lack of annotations, making the brevity come at the cost of necessary detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and two mandatory parameters, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know how to invoke the tool correctly or what entity_type means.

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% for both required integer parameters. The description does not explain what node_ref or entity_type mean, what values are valid, or how they relate to the returned connected entities, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('connected entity references') scoped to a node, making the core function clear. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like gsa_node_coor or gsa_gen_node_at, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description gives no guidance on how this tool fits among the many node- and entity-related siblings.

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