entity_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'read' which implies non-mutating, but does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics, error behavior, or permissions. There is no mention of what happens if the entity does not exist or if the path is invalid.

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 concise sentence, which is structurally simple and front-loaded with the action. However, it is too terse to convey necessary nuance, leaving critical details unstated. It is not verbose, but brevity here sacrifices usefulness.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how entity_name and entity_path relate, nor the role of declaration_path or repository_path. While an output schema exists (not shown), the description still lacks the context needed to correctly construct a valid invocation.

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 explain parameter meaning. It mentions 'type' and 'repository-relative path' but does not map these to entity_name, entity_path, repository_path, or declaration_path. The description adds no clarification on what each parameter represents or how they interrelate.

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 action (read) and the resource (one local entity), and specifies selection by type and repository-relative path. It implies a singular read operation, distinguishing it from list or search tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings. The term 'type' is ambiguous but contextually maps to entity_name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like entity_list, entity_search, or entity_read_related. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are provided. An agent cannot infer which tool to pick from the description alone.

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