Api entities list

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond a vague hint of performance optimization in serialization; it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or that it returns a paginated collection, which is the behavior an agent actually needs.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so there is no bloat, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than discipline. The one sentence it spends is on internal implementation detail that does not help tool selection.

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?

A 24-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, no parameter documentation and no annotation-independent explanation is left almost entirely unexplained. The description neither compensates for the schema gap nor tells the agent what a successful response contains.

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?

There are 24 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and every property is a bare anyOf/null with no type or meaning. The description contributes zero information about what id, ref_id, search, limit, offset, ordering, filtering_labels, or the DORA-specific fields do. This is the worst case: both schema and description are silent.

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 reads as an internal implementation comment ("Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context") rather than a statement of what the tool does for a caller. It only indirectly implies listing entities via the word "list"; an agent cannot tell from this text that it retrieves a filtered collection of entities, nor how it differs from ciso_assistant_api_entities_retrieve or entities_object_retrieve.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to choose instead. With dozens of entities_* siblings (retrieve, object_retrieve, export_csv, graph_retrieve), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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