expand_entity

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 does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects may occur, whether pagination is applied, or what happens if the entity_id is invalid. The mention of 'expand' and linked data hints at a graph traversal but lacks behavioral detail.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and outcome, making it easy to scan.

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 has three parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'verified edges' means, whether there are performance implications, or how the linked items are presented. The output schema may cover return structure, but the description lacks sufficient context for correct usage.

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 description does not mention parameters at all. The schema already documents entity_id with 'Exact v3_sag_entities.entity_id' and limit constraints, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. With schema coverage at 67%, the description could have helped clarify parameter usage but does not.

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 ('expand') and the resource ('canonical entity'), and specifies the output types (Event, Subchunk, spatiotemporal evidence, verified edges). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_entity and get_subchunk_context, though it does not explicitly name an alternative 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for a given entity_id but does not mention exclusions or recommend other tools for different scenarios.

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