get_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool returns entity metadata including type-specific info (APM language, host metrics), which conveys expected output. While it doesn't mention error cases or safety guarantees, 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the stated return value adds useful behavioral context.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then adds a brief note on return content. Every word earns its place, and it is easily scannable.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the essentials. It mentions type-specific info, which is helpful, and no critical usage details are missing. It could note that the GUID must exist, but that is implied by 'specific entity'.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter (guid) with a clear description ('The New Relic entity GUID.'). The description's mention of 'by its GUID' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('specific entity'), and the identifier ('by its GUID'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_entities (which is for searching) and nrql_query (query language), so an agent can tell when to pick this tool.

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 implies the tool should be used when you already have an entity GUID, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like search_entities or state when not to use it. There is no exclusion or condition beyond having a GUID, so the guidance is incomplete but not misleading.

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