gsa_entities_in_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the list expression is invalid, return cardinality, ordering, or error behavior. The single sentence leaves the agent guessing about all behavioral aspects.

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 with no padding, so it is technically concise. However, it is concise to the point of under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

There is an output schema, so return-value explanation is not required. But for a 2-required-param tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an opaque integer enum parameter, the description is far too thin to let an agent call it correctly.

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 two parameters (lst, list_type) have bare titles with no descriptions. The description mentions 'list expression' which maps loosely to 'lst', but gives no format, syntax, valid values, or meaning for the integer 'list_type' enum-less parameter. This is a critical gap.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ('Resolve list expression to entities' vs 'gsa_entities_in_list'). It states a verb (resolve) and a resource (entities), but 'list expression' is domain jargon and the core behavior isn't distinguishable from siblings like gsa_is_item_included or gsa_elem_memb_num.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. In a sibling set of ~60 tools with several entity-list related tools (gsa_is_item_included, gsa_elem_memb_num, gsa_memb_elem_num, gsa_node_connected_ent), the agent gets no routing help.

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