utmt-get-entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It appropriately states the return format (JSON), and highlights special behaviors for string and generalinfo types. It does not detail error handling or explicitly confirm read-only status, but the 'get' verb and JSON return imply a non-destructive operation, which is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and to the point: three sentences cover purpose, return format, and special cases without any fluff or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return type and handles type-specific quirks. It could be improved by mentioning behavior when an entity is not found or if the CLI path is missing, but overall it provides the essential context needed to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including the note about using index for string type. The description adds minimal extra nuance beyond the schema, such as that 'generalinfo' ignores the name parameter, but this is a small addition on top of the structured fields.

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 action (Get detailed info), the target (single entity), and the source (GameMaker data file), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-entities and export-entity. The supported types further clarify scope.

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?

Provides useful context for when to use this tool (single entity retrieval) and includes type-specific usage instructions for 'string' and 'generalinfo'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the 'single entity' phrasing implies differentiation.

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