get-entity-tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that data is exact and includes a 'connected' boolean field. However, it does not mention potential side effects, access restrictions, or response size limits. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Two paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action. The second paragraph elaborates on the primary use case. Concise overall; no unnecessary fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, use case, return structure (JSON string with states), and key behavioral detail (connected field). Could clarify that all entity types are considered 'devices' for health checks.

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 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning to parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions. It notes the tool can request multiple types at once, which is already implied by the array 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves entities/devices and specifies it is the primary tool for device health checks. It distinguishes from siblings by implication but does not explicitly differentiate from entity-lookup-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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'When asked about device health, offline devices, or connectivity issues, use this tool.' Does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear.

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