get_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the meaningful detail that the return payload is the 'complete edit-time JSON' and that lookup is by resource_id, but it does not disclose behavior such as error handling, whether deleted entities return empty, or the exact structure of the JSON.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The core purpose and the key qualifier ('complete edit-time JSON') are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and actionable.

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 read-only getter with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It communicates what will be returned (complete edit-time JSON) and how to identify the entity. Missing details like error behavior or a return structure example are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 documents the single parameter id as 'Entity ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds the useful clarification that id is the resource_id, linking the parameter to the concept of an entity resource. This is extra meaning beyond the schema, though the mapping is not perfectly explicit.

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 ('Get') and resource ('entity'), and specifies it returns the complete edit-time JSON for one entity by resource_id. This clearly distinguishes it from list_entities (which lists entities) and get_selection (which gets selected entities), even without explicitly naming siblings.

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 context is implied: an agent should use this when it needs the full edit-time JSON for a specific entity identified by its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer alternatives like list_entities, resolve_entities, or get_selection, and no mention of prerequisites such as the entity already existing.

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