get_entity_source

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by clarifying the return payload is the full owned body rather than a truncated snippet. It omits behavior for a missing/invalid id and any size or rate limits.

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, both earning their place: the first states the action and return scope, the second states the usage condition and contrast. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so ('exact graph-owned body', 'real source text'). One parameter plus full annotation coverage keeps this nearly complete; only error behavior for absent entities is unaddressed.

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 100% with a single entity_id parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax, format, or lookup semantics beyond the schema's 'Entity UUID.' 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?

Specific verb (return) plus a precisely scoped resource: one entity's exact graph-owned body addressed by id. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the snippet-returning search siblings (semantic_search, semantic_locate) by emphasizing 'exact' and 'real source text, not a snippet.'

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition — 'when you hold an id' — and a contrast case ('need the real source text, not a snippet'), which routes the agent away from search tools. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative or stating when not to use it.

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