get_smart_object_slot_entrance_annotations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the full return structure, which is important because no output schema exists.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a detailed return shape. The return listing is long but justified since no output schema is provided, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

Annotations cover the read-only nature and the return shape is disclosed. However, slot_index is optional in the schema while the description implies a single slot ('a slot's'), leaving unclear what happens if it is omitted—a gap that could affect correct invocation.

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% and both parameters are fully described in the schema. The description does not add syntax or behavior detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (List) and resource (a slot's entrance annotations) and explicitly identifies itself as the read counterpart to add_smart_object_slot_entrance_annotation. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling mutators.

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 'round-trip reader for add_smart_object_slot_entrance_annotation' phrasing clearly indicates when to use it: after annotations have been added. It does not name an alternative getter or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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