entity_present_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the high-level action but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as that it triggers a UI change, may require authentication, or how error handling works. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or operational requirements.

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 (8 words) but at the cost of omitting critical information. It is under-specified, not efficiently concise. It could include a few more sentences to convey usage and behavior without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 5 parameters including authentication and error handling, and despite an output schema, the description lacks explanation of the tool's effect (opening a flexpane) and the role of parameters like 'error' or 'user_auth_required'. The description is incomplete for the complexity involved.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 with no improvement.

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 action (present) and the resource (entity details in a flexpane). It is sufficiently specific for a tool name that implies a UI action. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools, though none are obviously similar.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites or when not to use it. This is a complete gap.

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