getEntityContext

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses truncation behavior ('lower-priority bullets are dropped behind a marker'), time-slice semantics ('header is unchanged'), and error contracts ('E_NOT_FOUND' for unknown, 'E_VALIDATION' naming candidates for ambiguous names). It also defines the dossier's structure (header, Connections, What I know, Mentioned in, counts footer).

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful information. The description is dense but appropriately sized for a composite tool with five parameters, though it could be slightly tighter by avoiding restatement of schema details such as entity formats and budget truncation.

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's complexity, the description covers the critical dimensions: what the dossier contains, how time-slicing behaves, how truncation works, and what errors to expect. An output schema exists, so return-value formatting need not be explained further. The definition is complete enough to call correctly.

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 every parameter in detail, including accepted `entity` formats, `at` time semantics, `scopes` defaults, `include` filtering, and `tokenBudget` truncation. The description largely restates that information rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assemble a single token-budgeted markdown dossier for ONE entity.' It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the five calls it collapses (get + relations + neighbors + recall + facts) and explicitly says to prefer it over 'many small reads' for a full picture. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and that it is a composite read.

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?

Usage is explicit: use it when you need the full picture of one entity instead of many small reads. It also names the alternative pattern ('many small reads') and explains the section-filtering option via `include`, plus the time-slicing use case via `at`. No major inference is required to choose this tool.

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