get_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' self-evidently signals a read-only operation and it discloses return content ('full entity data including fields and relationships'), but it omits permissions, error behavior for unknown UUIDs, and any rate-limit context.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the identification mechanism (UUID) is front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause earns its place.

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 partially compensates by noting the return includes fields and relationships. Both parameters are covered by the schema. It is nearly complete for a simple single-resource fetch, with only error/permission behavior left unstated.

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%, so both the required 'id' UUID and the 'fields' control parameter are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 ('a single Productboard entity by its UUID'), which naturally separates it from list_entities and search_entities by scope. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the 'single/by UUID' qualifier gives an agent enough to distinguish it.

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 'by its UUID' phrasing implies the tool is used when the caller already holds an identifier, distinguishing it from search/list. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (search_entities, list_entities) are given, leaving routing to inference.

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