List entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description only adds that pagination is optional, which is thin extra context; this is a baseline 3 for a well-annotated read tool.

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 compact sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and terminology. It is perhaps slightly too terse for a tool with four parameters, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With a full output schema, complete annotation coverage and 100% parameter documentation, the structured fields carry most of the load, so the description is functionally sufficient. However, it omits any routing against the many sibling list tools and the entity getter, leaving a gap an agent must resolve on its own.

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%, with all four parameters (range, fields, format, expand_dropdowns) documented in the schema itself, including enum meanings. The description's mention of 'optional pagination' adds nothing beyond the schema's range parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (GLPI entities) and clarifies the domain term with 'organizational units'. This clearly separates it from glpi_get_entity, glpi_create_entity, glpi_update_entity and glpi_delete_entity, but it makes no explicit reference to any sibling name.

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 guidance is provided. The description does not mention the relevant sibling glpi_get_my_entities, which an agent might reasonably prefer when only the caller's own entities are wanted, nor does it state prerequisites for enumerating entities.

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