ftrack_get_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds behavioral detail by specifying 'single entity' (returns one object) and 'with specified projections' (returns only requested fields). However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions needed, or response format, leaving some gaps.

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 that starts with the verb 'Get', making it immediately clear what the tool does. It contains no fluff 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?

This is a simple read operation with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description clarifies the projection behavior, which is the main non-obvious aspect. However, it does not describe the return format or error behavior, but this is acceptable for such a focused 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'specified projections' reinforces the optional projections parameter but adds no new details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('a single entity'), and the method of identification ('by type and ID'), while also mentioning the optional projection behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ftrack_query or ftrack_search, which are for broader queries.

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 clearly indicates the tool retrieves one entity by type and ID, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, even though sibling tools like ftrack_query exist.

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