エンティティ詳細

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a read operation. The description adds significant behavioral detail: the structure of the return value (entityId, componentTypes, luaReadable, sceneGeneration) and the fact that luaReadable currently only contains transform. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing parameters and return fields. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description effectively summarizes the return structure, including key fields. It also clarifies the luaReadable component list, making it complete for a read operation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that name is for exact match and is stable when id changes (e.g., after Stop). This helps the agent choose between the two parameters.

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 tool's purpose: read entity components and values in JSON, specifically for checking state before editing. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact match name parameter and the scope (all components, not just specific ones).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before editing to check state') and how to specify the entity (by id or exact name). It also notes the stability of name after Stop, providing context for parameter choice. While it doesn't list alternatives, the specificity suffices.

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