gripp_describe_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. The verb 'Describe' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about safety, side effects, or authentication requirements. It is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes all key information without redundancy. Every word is efficient.

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 simple one-parameter input and no output schema, the description lists the output contents (fields, references, enum values, methods, examples), which provides a good understanding of what to expect. It is nearly complete, though it could mention that the output is a JSON structure.

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 schema covers the single parameter with a basic description (100% coverage). The tool description adds valuable examples ('for example company, contact, invoice, project, task'), clarifying the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 'describe' the resource 'one Gripp API entity' and lists what is included (fields, references, enum values, methods, examples). It distinctively contrasts with sibling tools like 'gripp_get' which fetch instance data, not schema.

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 implies use for understanding entity structure, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gripp_list_entities' or 'gripp_get'. No exclusions or context are given.

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