entity_read

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the returned data shape (status, momentum, blockers, etc.) and the ability to fetch all entities. This goes beyond the annotation but doesn't cover potential edge cases like staleness or error behavior, but for a read tool the bar is lower.

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?

Three focused sentences: usage instruction, core functionality, and an exclusion. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema). The description fully covers when to use it, what it returns, and how to invoke it (first, before grep), making it complete within its simplicity.

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 single parameter entity_id is fully described in the schema ('Entity ID to read. Omit for all entities.'). The description repeats this concept ('one or all tracked entities') without adding new syntax or format details, so 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?

Clearly states the tool returns operational state for entities, with specific fields (status, momentum, blockers, etc.). The verb 'Returns' and resource scope ('one or all tracked entities') distinguish it from update tools and code-reading alternatives.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool FIRST for state questions, before reading code or git history. Provides an exclusion ('Do not grep files') and implicit alternative (code/git reading), making usage unambiguous.

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