entity_get

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring safety, the description still adds meaningful behavior: summary excludes sensitive Statements by design, full returns non-outdated Statements ordered by topic then creation, and includeHistory/includeEvents modify the payload. It does not discuss permissions or error behavior, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action before parameter detail, and every clause carries information. It is slightly run-on with stacked parentheticals, but there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly explains return shape per view and per modifier, including ordering and the sensitive-data exclusion. For a single-required-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint, nothing material is missing.

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 20% (entityId alone), so the description must carry the load, and it does: it defines entityId (id or "current_user"), the two view values and their distinct return shapes, and what includeHistory, includeEvents, and topics each add. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare 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?

"Read one Entity" gives a specific verb and singular resource, which implicitly separates it from the sibling entity_search and entity_create. However, it never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives clear context for choosing view: "summary" is framed as the short list "meant to be loaded into every conversation (never sensitive ones)", while "full" is the default. That is real when-to-use guidance for parameters, but there is no guidance on when to reach for entity_get versus entity_search.

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