describe_entity_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it states 'Read-only; no persistence side effects', documents the InvalidParams error condition, and explains the scope preference behavior with user_specific and ERR_SCHEMA_SCOPE_MISMATCH. This is far beyond minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: main output, usage workflow, repair path, error behavior, and scope differentiation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents before diving into workflow details, which suits a tool with no annotations and many siblings.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies return fields, call timing, error handling, scope behavior, and relationships to related tools, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

The input schema descriptions are at 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that entity_type identifies the schema being described and adds context about user scope ('always passes the session user id'), which gives meaning to the user_id parameter. It does not fully explain parameter formats or optionality, but it covers the critical semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full active schema for one entity_type') and enumerates the returned components. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like update_schema_incremental, register_schema, and list_entity_types, so an agent can recognize exactly what this tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call before store to avoid unknown_fields and required_fields_missing warnings, and use in a repair workflow after unknown_fields_count > 0. It also names alternatives and when to prefer them, such as using list_entity_types or register_schema when no active schema exists, and warns against register_schema for scope mismatch.

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