get-actor-entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly labels this a 'read path' and states outputs (complete description, all system data, and module flags for items), including a concrete forensic use case. It doesn't detail error behavior or a formal read-only guarantee, but the read-path label and output inventory sufficiently convey non-destructive behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a compact enumeration of supported types, return contents, and usage guidance. Every clause carries information with no padding or redundancy.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description supplies the key context: entity categories, expected return payload, a use case (flag forensics), and the relationship to get-actor. It does not cover failure semantics or an explicit read-only statement, but the read-path label and 'returns' framing make the behavior adequately clear.

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 input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding what entityIdentifier may refer to (feats, equipment, spells, strikes, special abilities, effects/conditions), which is more specific than the schema's generic list. This clarifies that the parameter accepts both IDs and names across multiple entity categories.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Retrieve full details for a specific entity from a character'), enumerates the supported entity types (items, actions, effects), and clearly differentiates from get-actor by saying 'Use this after get-actor'. It states what the tool returns and who it targets, so an agent can distinguish it from broader siblings like get-actor and get-item.

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 final sentence gives explicit sequencing: 'Use this after get-actor when you need detailed information about a specific entity.' This provides a clear condition for use. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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