get_studio_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behaviour: plural canonical keys, singular aliases, hyphen-to-underscore normalisation, and that unknown values return the allowed list (a soft-fail rather than an error). It does not state permissions, read-only nature, or any failure mode beyond unknown keys.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every detail about key naming earns its place by preventing a real class of invocation errors. The prose is slightly fragmented across lines but wastes no words.

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 no explanation, and the description still covers the tricky input semantics and the unknown-value fallback. The remaining gap is the undocumented `entity_id` contract and lack of any permission/side-effect note for a tool whose annotations are absent.

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 well for `entity` — catalog key naming rules, alias handling, and normalisation are all spelled out. However, `entity_id` gets no explanation at all (format, source, example), so only half the parameters gain 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single Studio entity') plus the lookup keys (type and id), which cleanly separates it from the many list_* siblings that return collections. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explains the catalogue-key input convention but never says when to reach for this tool instead of list_studio_catalogue, list_personas, or list_crews. Usage must be inferred from 'single' versus the list-oriented siblings; there are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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