get_system_ids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that this returns commonly used type, property, and data type IDs, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose output format, behavior for category='all', or any other operational details beyond what the annotation and schema already imply.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence usefully enumerates the categories of IDs returned. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup with a fully documented enum, the description is largely sufficient. There is no output schema, so a brief note on the return shape would make it fully complete, but an agent can likely infer the return from 'IDs' and the category parameter.

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 category parameter has a clear enum and description. The tool description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so it appropriately earns the baseline score of 3.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('well-known system entity IDs from the Geo knowledge graph'), and the scope ('commonly used type, property, and data type IDs'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_type or get_entity, which target individual entity/type records rather than system IDs.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs well-known system IDs for constructing or referencing types, properties, and data types. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_type or list_types, nor does it mention exclusions or context like 'use this before creating a type.'

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