list_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description never states that explicitly and says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering for a registry that may hold many entries. Adequate but with real gaps for an unannotated 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the type shortcut, then per-parameter detail in a scannable structure. The four type values are listed twice (inline sentence and 'Filter by' bullet), a small redundancy that costs a little efficiency without hurting clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers all three optional filters including their semantics. What is missing is routing relative to siblings like search_entries and suggest_entries, which is the one thing an agent would still have to guess.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it supplies the allowed type values (skill, agent, command, hook), concrete plugin name examples, and the non-obvious OR-match semantics for tags. The only shortfall is that type is typed as a free string in the schema while the description implies a closed set.

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 and resource ('List registry entries') and enumerates the four entry types it can return, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It never names a sibling, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should prefer this over search_entries or suggest_entries.

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?

'Omit all filters to list every entry in the registry' gives one clear usage condition, and the type examples show the common invocation. However, there is no guidance on when to use this instead of search_entries, suggest_entries, or list_plugins, which is the real ambiguity given the sibling set.

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