entity_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by saying results are limited to relevant details and recent History, and it provides a domain invariant: 'Decision bodies are never Canvas nodes.' However, it never states whether the operation is read-only, what the response structure is, or what side effects, if any, 'open' may have.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The supported entity types are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful boundary condition rather than repeating the schema. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and several sibling tools, this description is too thin for fully confident invocation. It leaves locale, id semantics, historyLimit bounds, includeStructured behavior, output shape, and sibling differentiation unexplained. It is adequate for a first guess but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: the entity list mirrors the type enum, 'project-scoped' aligns with projectRoot, 'recent History' aligns with historyLimit, and 'relevant details' loosely suggests includeStructured. Yet id and locale are completely unaddressed, and the prose mappings are imprecise rather than explicit parameter documentation.

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 states a clear action ('Open') and enumerates the exact resource types: Block, Chain, Link, Plan, or project-scoped Decision. It also previews what the call returns ('only relevant details and recent History'), making the tool's core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like decision_open, but the enumerated scope is still clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use entity_open versus alternatives such as decision_open, graph_search, or context_for_task. The project-scoped qualifier and 'only relevant details' hint at a focused retrieval use case, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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