mcp_get_entity

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'bidirectional', which is useful, but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has limits, or how the result is structured. Basic transparency but incomplete.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and purposeful. While very concise, it could be slightly expanded with minimal additional detail without sacrificing structure.

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 presence of an output schema (from context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. For a one-parameter tool with simple behavior, the description adequately covers the functionality, though some users might want more detail about the bidirectional aspect.

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%, and the schema already describes the 'name' parameter as 'Exact entity name to look up.' The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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's function: 'Get all relationships for a specific entity (bidirectional).' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('relationships for a specific entity'), and highlights bidirectional behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mcp_search_graph.

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 implies usage when needing all relationships of an entity, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mcp_search_graph) or provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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