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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a query operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or detail other traits like permissions, rate limits, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 with a single sentence: 'Query entities by type and/or name.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, efficiently conveying the core action and parameters. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the verb, resource, and key inputs.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral traits and parameter usage, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a query tool.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'type and/or name,' which maps to the two parameters (entity_type and name), adding some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain what entity types are available, how name matching works, or the interaction between parameters, failing to fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Query entities by type and/or name,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'query' and resource 'entities,' but lacks specificity about what entities are or the query's scope. It distinguishes from siblings like entity_create/update/relate by being a query operation, but doesn't differentiate from memory_search, which might overlap in function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose entity_query over memory_search for entity-related queries. It implies usage through the action 'query,' but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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