get_entity_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only action with 'List' and specifies the return shape as a JSON array with 'component_id' and 'type' fields. However, it does not describe behavior for invalid entity IDs, empty component lists, or whether any side effects occur.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential call contract: what the tool does, what argument is required, and what the response looks like. It lacks edge-case behavior like handling of nonexistent entities, but the low complexity and clear return format make it adequately 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?

The input schema only defines entity_id as a required string with no description. The tool description adds minimal semantic value by stating 'The entity ID to inspect,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. Since there is only one parameter, this is sufficient, but it does not explain how to obtain the ID or any format expectations.

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 action: 'List all components attached to an entity.' The verb 'List', the resource 'components', and the scope 'attached to an entity' make the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_component_property or add_component.

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 clearly indicates this is the tool for enumerating all components on an entity, which implies it is not for reading a single component property or modifying components. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'all components' phrasing gives strong contextual guidance.

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