gsa_tool_get_ent_length

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires an open model/file, what happens if the entity does not exist, or how errors are surfaced. 'Return' implies read-only but that is not made explicit.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action and return value. It wastes no words, though it is too terse to be informative.

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?

Given a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that presumably covers the return value, the description should at least disambiguate the entity types and id domain. It leaves an agent unable to confidently construct a call.

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% and the description does not clarify the two parameters beyond naming them. It does not explain valid ranges for entity_type (despite calling it an 'enum type'), nor whether entity_id refers to a node, element, member, or case id – exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved.

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 verb and resource ('Return entity length') and names the inputs, so the purpose is discernible. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like gsa_elem_memb_num or gsa_memb_num_elem that also query entities, and 'entity enum type' is vague about what entity types are meant.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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