get_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output format (raw DXF) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, error behavior for invalid handles, or any side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.

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 phrase with no redundant information. It is highly concise and easy to parse, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It lacks any usage context, prerequisites, or confirmation of behavior. For a simple get tool, one might expect at least a note about handle uniqueness or return format, but the description remains minimal.

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. It does mention 'by handle,' connecting the sole parameter to the entity lookup, but it does not elaborate on the handle's format or usage. This provides some semantic value over the bare schema, but not enough for a higher score.

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 returns 'raw DXF data of an entity by handle,' which identifies the resource and scope. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'get_entity' implies retrieval, and the phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like entity_points or entity_length.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling query tools, the description fails to clarify when raw DXF data is needed or why one would choose this over entity_points or get_extents.

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