get_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context that inherited members are merged in and that a `defined_in` field marks the declaring base, but nothing about how large a result can get or how missing entities behave.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the resource and payload contents front-loaded and the `defined_in` clarification as a short follow-up.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and required params are clear from the schema. The one real gap is the undescribed `side` parameter, which also interacts with the `side:classname` input form mentioned in the schema.

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 description coverage is only 50%: `game` and `classname` are documented, but `side` and `include_inherited` have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining that inherited members are included, which maps to `include_inherited`, but `side` (server/client) is never explained at all.

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 and resource ('Get a Hammer entity') and enumerates exactly what comes back: keyvalues with choices, inputs, outputs, and inherited members. That is far more specific than the sibling search_docs or find_entities_with_io, though it never names those siblings to contrast itself against.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required classname plus 'or `side:classname` from a search key' signals this is the follow-up lookup after a search. It never states when to prefer this over find_entities_with_io or get_schema_class, nor any preconditions.

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