list_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints at read-only behavior by using the word "List." It says nothing about default behavior when filter is omitted (all entities?), return format, result ordering, or pagination for a tool that could return an entire drawing's contents.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the purpose and then the filter shape; no filler. The parenthetical enum list is dense but earns its place since the schema documents nothing.

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 1-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the filter adequately but omits return behavior, default scope, and any hint of result size. Given the complexity of the nested filter and the zero schema documentation, a bit more is needed for an agent to call this confidently.

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% and the filter is an opaque object with additionalProperties:{}, so the description must compensate — and it largely does, naming the three filter keys (kind/type, layer, ids) and enumerating valid EntityType values. It loses a point for the unresolved "kind or type?" ambiguity, leaving the agent unsure which key name is accepted.

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?

"List entities" states a clear verb+resource, but gives no scope qualifier (all entities? current document? active layer?) even though siblings like list_entities_by_domain_kind, find_entities_by_layer, and find_entities_in_region make scope the key differentiator. An agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this over those filtered alternatives.

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 description mentions an optional filter but never says when to use this tool versus the several sibling query tools (find_entities_by_layer, find_entities_in_region, find_entities_by_property, list_entities_by_domain_kind). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance.

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