getEntityProperties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type shape ({ success, data?, message?, error? }), which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior, missing-entity handling, or any additional side effects beyond the annotations.

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 plus a compact return-type signature. It front-loads the core purpose and wastes no words.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape sufficiently. Minor gap: no mention of what 'graphics metadata' includes or how errors are surfaced, but this is acceptable given the output schema and context.

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 meaningful parameter descriptions (e.g., entityId obtainable via queryEntities, sessionId for routing). The description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema fully documents them, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('properties and graphics metadata for one entity'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like queryEntities. It precisely identifies the tool's scope as a single-entity read operation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance appears in the description. It implies use for reading properties of one entity but does not contrast with queryEntities or explain when this tool is preferred over other list/query tools.

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