get_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add genuinely important context: the call runs through the Dynatrace Bridge browser extension in the user's logged-in browser, and on failure the agent should report the error rather than attempt browser automation. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only semantics, rate limits, or environment-connection prerequisites (though it points to dynatrace_bridge_status for environment names).

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-loaded with the return contents, then invocation rules, then the environment/failure caveat — a sensible ordering with little waste. The parenthetical property enumeration per entity type is somewhat long, but it earns its place by showing breadth for a type-agnostic tool.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description does most of the necessary work: it describes the response shape, disambiguates the name-vs-id path, and flags the browser-extension dependency and failure protocol. It does not explain the time-window parameters (time_from/time_to/minutes_lookback) in prose, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The prose largely restates what the schema already says ('Pass `entity` as an id ... or as a name together with `type`'; ambiguity returns candidates) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, though the cross-tool note about reusing related ids is a useful extension.

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 and resource ('Returns one Dynatrace entity in full') and enumerates the returned content: type, first/last seen, tags, management zones, type-specific properties, and relationships with ids/names. The word 'one' plus the relational detail plainly separates it from the many list_* siblings (list_pods, list_services, find_entities).

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance: pass `entity` as an id or as a name together with `type`, note that an ambiguous name returns candidates, and that related ids can be fed back into get_entity or query_metrics entity selectors. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over find_entities or get_host/list_pods for the same object.

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