Get Data Flow

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that despite being a read, the report surfaces mutating behavior such as DB writes and state changes. It says nothing about scope of analysis, cost, or result size, so it adds only moderate value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines what the tool reveals, the second gives when to reach for it. The purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description needs to carry purpose and usage, which it does. It is nearly complete; the missing piece is how this relates to closely related siblings such as trace_data_path or get_dependencies.

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%, and the schema itself documents project (including the list_projects hint) and entity_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reveals what data a function reads, returns, and mutates (DB writes, state changes). That is concrete and well beyond a restatement of the name. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'trace_data_path', which an agent could easily confuse with this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear triggering conditions: debugging data bugs, or verifying side effects before refactoring. That is genuinely actionable context. It names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use trace_data_path or get_dependencies instead), so it is not a full 5.

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