list_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the output fields and optional filtering, and 'list' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose absence of side effects, ordering, error behavior, or behavior when filters match nothing.

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?

A single, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the output scope and then adds filter options. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only listing tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and filter semantics. It could more explicitly state the output shape (e.g., array of entity objects) and error conditions, but these are largely inferable from the context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions classname substring and property key/value filtering, but these simply restate the schema's parameter descriptions without adding new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('entities') and enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling get_entity, which fetches a single entity, and from map_overview, which summarizes the map.

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 optional filters (classname substring, property key/value) imply when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer sibling tools like get_entity or when not to use this tool. The intended context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not stated.

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