Graforest MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by specifying 'with all properties' which clarifies the completeness of returned data beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a single entity') followed by key qualifiers. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only retrieval tool with good annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the scope of returned data ('with all properties') which is important given no output schema. However, it doesn't mention what happens if the entity doesn't exist or if there are access restrictions, which would be helpful context.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage (3 of 4 parameters well-described), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'by type and ID' which is already covered, but doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide examples beyond what the 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a single entity'), specifies the selection criteria ('by type and ID'), and indicates the scope of returned data ('with all properties'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_knowledge_entities (which lists multiple entities) and get_knowledge_schema (which gets schema information).

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 for retrieving a specific entity when type and ID are known, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like search_knowledge_graph (for queries) or list_knowledge_entities (for browsing). It mentions project_code comes 'from list_knowledge_projects' which provides some prerequisite guidance.

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