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

The description correctly identifies the tool as 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to mention other behavioral details such as pagination behavior, response format, or any limitations (e.g., max results). This leaves the agent without full understanding of side effects or output expectations.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences containing only necessary information: the core operation and the read-only nature. Every word serves a purpose, and the key action is front-loaded, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basics but lacks completeness for agent decision-making. Additional context like response structure (is it a list of IDs or full objects?), pagination, or error handling would improve completeness. The current description is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'type' with a clear description and example values. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List all entities') and the resource ('of a given type'), and explicitly marks it as read-only. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like kb_get (individual entity) and kb_search (filtered search), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

While the description implies usage for listing all entities of a type, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., ''for a list of all threats, use this; for specific criteria, use kb_search''). The sibling names provide context, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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