Get Entity (Snipe-IT)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral details about fetching by ID and subresource inclusion patterns, which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence with examples, front-loading the core purpose. It is moderately concise; could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for examples) but is effective and wastes little space.

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 lack of an output schema and moderate parameter count, the description covers the key aspects: fetching by ID, subresource inclusion, and example patterns. It does not describe return structure, but for a simple get operation, this is acceptable. The annotations fill gaps on safety and idempotency.

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 only 33% (entity has a description). The description compensates by explaining the 'include' parameter with concrete examples for multiple entity types. The 'id' parameter is not elaborated, but its purpose is obvious from context. Overall, the description adds significant meaning 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 clearly states the tool fetches one entity by ID or a subresource via include, with specific examples. It distinguishes from siblings like snipeit_get_asset (for assets/hardware) by noting that assets have their own tools, and from snipeit_list_entities by focusing on a single entity retrieval.

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 provides explicit examples of when to use the include parameter for different entity types (e.g., licenses include=seats). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like snipeit_list_entities, though the context suggests it is for single entity or subresource retrieval.

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