laserfiche_entry_get_by_path

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 discloses failure modes (error slugs like 'not_found', 'auth_failed') and the output shape, which provides good behavioral context for an agent.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, arguments, returns, and failures. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and concise enough. Minor redundancy with schema but acceptable.

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 (single parameter, output schema defined), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, return value shape, and failure modes. No critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with a thorough description and examples. The tool description adds value by repeating the parameter info in a readable form, noting that forward slashes are accepted, and providing an explicit example. It does not add much beyond the schema but is helpful.

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 resolves a backslash-delimited Laserfiche path to its entry, using specific verbs. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_entry' (which uses an ID) by explicitly referencing path-based resolution.

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 explicitly says when to use: when the user refers to a location by its path, such as from the web client. It also explains how the returned id feeds into other tools, but it does not mention when *not* to use it or provide explicit alternatives among siblings.

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