mcp_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation (fetches relationships) and mentions bidirectionality, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify side effects (likely none), error cases (e.g., entity not found), or performance characteristics. The description is adequate but minimal.

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?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence (9 words), front-loading the core functionality. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema (which presumably defines the response structure), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the basic purpose and scope (all relationships, bidirectional). However, it could optionally mention what happens if the entity has no relationships or is not found. Still, it is largely complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 input schema provides full description coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'name' with clear documentation ('Exact entity name to look up'). The description adds only the 'bidirectional' scope but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves all relationships for a specific entity, with bidirectional semantics. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('relationships for a specific entity'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_entities (which lists entities, not relationships) and mcp_search_graph (which is for graph-wide searches).

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like search_memories or mcp_search_graph might also retrieve relationship information, but no comparison is offered.

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