get_entity

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

The description discloses that the tool returns both incoming and outgoing connections, which is helpful. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. The disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise: two sentences stating the purpose and return value, plus a short parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks clarity on what 'all relationships' entails—whether it includes indirect relationships or only direct ones—and does not differentiate from search_graph. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but some additional context would improve completeness.

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 provides no description for the 'name' parameter, but the description adds concrete examples (e.g., 'Justin', 'TypeScript') and clarifies that it is an entity name. This significantly aids the agent in understanding what values to provide, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves all relationships for a specific entity, including both incoming and outgoing connections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memories (which deals with memories) and search_graph (which is likely broader). The verb 'get' and resource 'relationships' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_graph. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context where this tool is preferred. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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