get_entity

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior itself. 'Get' clearly implies a read operation, and 'full details' gives some sense of the return, but the description does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or whether all entity types are equally supported. Basic transparency is present, but depth is missing.

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?

A single clear sentence with no filler; the key scoping condition ('by its OpenCTI ID') is front-loaded and the purpose is immediately understandable.

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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient: it names the input and the expected result ('full details'). However, without an output schema, a slightly more explicit statement of what 'full details' includes or error behavior would make it fully 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 100%: entity_id is already documented as an OpenCTI entity ID in UUID format. The description repeats this concept without adding new semantic detail, so it stays at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 ('Get full details') on a specific resource ('any entity') keyed by the OpenCTI ID, which distinguishes it from the sibling search/lookup tools that query by criteria or hash/IOC values. Even without naming a sibling, the purpose is 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?

The phrase 'by its OpenCTI ID' provides clear context for when to call this tool: when the agent already has an entity ID and needs the full object. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the usage context is evident.

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