quipu_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral note, that IRIs are passed as encoded query values including slashes and fragments, but says nothing about what happens when the IRI is unknown, whether an error or empty result is returned, or how dereferencing behaves across the open world.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious encoding caveat. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter, read-only dereference tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the encoding quirk but omits failure behavior and any hint at the JSON-LD shape returned, which is the main thing an agent cannot get from the empty schema or the annotations.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it makes a partial attempt: it explains that slashes and fragments in 'iri' are encoded as query values, and that 'expanded' relates to label expansion. However, 'label expansion' is left vague, and the encoding note implies format handling without stating how the caller should encode the value.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource pair: 'Dereference an exact IRI as JSON-LD'. The word 'exact' signals scope, which helps separate it from siblings like quipu_search or quipu_entity_ref, although no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer it should call this when it already holds a fully qualified IRI. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the closely related quipu_entity_ref and quipu_search tools are never mentioned or contrasted.

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