get_graph_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Only reads' is largely redundant. However, the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: the tool errors if the entity doesn't exist, and it spells out the return shape. It omits permission/auth needs, but discloses the key failure mode.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the return shape and error behavior. Every sentence carries information (scope, input source, return format, read-only, error case) with no filler, and the return shape earns its place because no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape ({ entity, edges }). Combined with the error behavior, single required parameter, and readOnly annotation, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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% and entityId is already documented as 'Entity id, from list_graph_entities.' The description repeats the same sourcing hint without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (knowledge-graph entity) with an explicit scope: the entity plus every edge touching it. It names the sibling tool list_graph_entities as the source of the required id, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from the list operation.

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?

It routes the agent to list_graph_entities for obtaining the required entityId, which is clear usage context. It stops short of an explicit when/when-not statement or naming alternatives by condition, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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