entity_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states the basic query functionality without any mention of read-only nature, destructive potential, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it modifies state. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word serves a function, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 (2 optional parameters, output schema present), the description is adequate in telling what it does, but it lacks additional context such as the nature of entities, example queries, or the structure of the output (though output schema covers that). It leaves the agent with basic understanding but no deeper behavioral or usage nuance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by indicating that both parameters ('name' and 'entity_type') are optional filters for querying. However, it does not specify the expected format, default behavior when both are empty, or any relationship between the parameters, which would help the agent construct proper queries.

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 'Query entities by type and/or name' clearly states the action (query), the resource (entities), and the filtering criteria (type and/or name). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_create, entity_relate, and entity_update, which involve creation, relation, and update operations respectively, and from memory_* tools that handle unstructured data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as memory_search or memory_verify. It does not specify that this tool is for structured entities while memory tools handle unstructured data, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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