get_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys it is a retrieval operation with a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or safe. This is a minor gap, but overall acceptable.

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 concise, with a clear structure: purpose, return value, prerequisite, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return, prerequisite, and parameter meaning. It lacks error handling or differentiation from related sibling tools, but overall is fairly complete.

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%, but the description includes an Args section that adds detail: 'name' is case-insensitive, 'entity_type' is optional. This provides meaning beyond the schema's type information.

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 it retrieves a named entity and its associated document chunks, specifying the return fields (name, type, chunk IDs) and case-insensitivity. It distinguishes from siblings like get_document which retrieves entire documents.

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 explicitly mentions a prerequisite (entity extraction enabled during indexing), which sets clear context for when the tool is usable. However, it does not discuss when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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