get_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' conveys a read-only operation, and 'at a specific commit' discloses that the lookup is version-pinned. The required entity_type domain is also stated, though error behavior and return format are not addressed.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the entity_type constraint is cleanly separated for readability.

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 single-entity fetch tool, the description plus schema provides enough practical detail: what to fetch, from where, and under which constraints. The main omissions are a direct pointer to read_schema for full-file needs and any hint about the output, but neither is critical for correct invocation at this complexity level.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description only repeats the entity_type enum values, adding little semantic value beyond what the input schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a precise resource ('one LinkML entity from a schema file at a specific commit'). It also enumerates exactly which entity types are allowed, clearly distinguishing it from file-level tools like read_schema or list_files.

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 usage: use this when you need a single entity at a pinned commit. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings such as read_schema for whole-schema reads or validate_schema for validation, leaving the decision to inference.

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