akai_entity

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (read-only, mutability, permissions, side effects). The category 'knowledge' hints at read operations but is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 phrase lacking structure. It is not front-loaded with key details, and the parenthetical 'category: knowledge' does not serve as effective guidance.

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 tool named 'entity' in an identity resolution domain, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no examples, no output behavior, and no explanation of how to use the CLI-style parameters for resolution, making it unusable for an AI agent.

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% with basic descriptions for 'args' and 'stdin'. The description does not add any domain-specific meaning linking these to identity resolution, providing no extra value beyond the schema.

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 'universal identity resolution layer' is vague and does not specify the tool's core action (e.g., resolve, merge, link). It provides no distinction from sibling tools like akai_auth or akai_proof, leaving the agent guessing what 'resolution' entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include akai_auth and akai_proof, which could overlap, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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