Get Entity

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation the description discloses a great deal: WCS coordinates, the per-call DXF export cost on the live engine with `detail_source`, `detail_unavailable` for block-definition members, tilted-plane behaviour that omits XY-inexpressible data, and explicit refusal for an unknown handle. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the specialised cases are grouped sensibly, but the bulk of the text re-documents return structure (loop fields, dimtype, defpoints, bulges, edges) that an output schema already exists to describe. For a one-parameter read tool it is considerably longer than it needs to be.

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 a mutation-free read tool with annotations and an output schema present, the definition covers what an agent still needs: entity-type-specific quirks, engine-dependent detail sourcing, degraded cases, and the error condition. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single `handle` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the failure case ('Refused: a handle the drawing does not hold'), which is useful but marginal.

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 first sentence states a precise verb and resource ('Get all properties of a specific entity by its handle'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings such as entity_get_xdata, analysis_measure_entity or entity_list, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives; analysis_measure_entity is mentioned only as the source of an area rule, not as an alternative to pick instead. The agent must infer from the sibling list which property-reading tool to call.

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