List Entries

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral details: filtering operators, OR/AND logic, 'me' keyword for user fields, token control via 'fields', and that system fields are always returned. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 paragraphs: first focuses on filtering core behavior, second on token control. Information is front-loaded (purpose clear immediately). Every sentence adds value, though a tiny bit redundant in the filter explanation. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not describe the return structure (e.g., pagination metadata, entry format). It covers filtering thoroughly but lacks details on response shape. With 10 parameters and nested filters, the missing output context is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 50%. The description adds significant semantic value for two key parameters: 'filters' (detailed operator explanation) and 'fields' (token control rationale). However, it does not cover undocumented parameters like state, sortBy, currentPage, sortDirection. The added explanation for the covered ones compensates somewhat, but not fully.

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 tool's purpose: 'Query entries with filters, sorting, pagination.' It uses a specific verb (query/list) and identifies the resource (entries). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_entry (single entry) and list_modules (modules).

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 provides implicit usage context (e.g., token control tips) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entry for a single entry or other list tools. No 'when not to use' or direct comparisons to siblings.

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