describe_entity_type

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no persistence side effects, returns schema details, and errors with InvalidParams when no active schema exists.

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 somewhat verbose but well-structured, front-loading key return info, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though could be tightened slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so description compensates by detailing return fields and error handling. It covers workflows and preconditions. Lacks parameter descriptions, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring description to explain parameters. Description uses 'entity_type' and 'user_id' but only acknowledges entity_type's purpose ('one entity_type'). user_id is not described beyond its name, leaving ambiguity about its role.

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 tool returns the full active schema for an entity type, listing specific components like field_names, field_summary, required_fields, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to call it (before store or in repair workflow).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: before store when field shape unknown, and in repair workflow after unknown_fields warnings. Also advises when not to use (only add new field if no declared field fits) and references alternatives (update_schema_incremental, register_schema).

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