autocad_get_entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by naming the exact return shape and the error convention ('Error (...)' when the handle is unknown), which tells the agent how failures surface.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then Args and Returns blocks – easy to scan. Slightly verbose in re-explaining the handle already documented in the schema, but nothing 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?

For a single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers purpose, input provenance, return keys, and error behavior. Complete enough to invoke correctly; the only omission is explicit sibling routing.

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?

Coverage signal is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It gives the format and provenance (hex string from a create/query tool, e.g. '1A4'), which the schema only partially echoes. It adds the 'where to get it' meaning beyond the bare pattern.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one entity) with scope qualifier 'by handle, including its geometry'. This cleanly separates it from the plural sibling autocad_query_entities and the mutation tools like autocad_move_entity.

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 'handle from a create/query tool' note implies where input comes from, so an agent can infer this is a follow-up lookup after creation or querying. However, it never explicitly contrasts with autocad_query_entities or states when-not to use it, leaving the alternative routing to inference.

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