entity_list

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the safety baseline is met. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: recursive traversal behavior around shared component instances and the existence of a total_exact completeness flag. Return/pagination format details remain thin, but this is useful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The reference to total_exact is slightly confusing given it is not in the input schema, but the overall brevity is appropriate.

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 14-parameter, 0%-coverage tool with no output schema, the description is far too sparse to guide correct invocation. It leaves most filter, unit, depth, and pagination parameters unexplained, so an agent must guess at their semantics.

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?

With 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and mostly fails it, explaining only scan_limit (and referencing total_exact, which is not even an input parameter). Tag, name, path, type, unit, limit, offset, model_id, entity_id, max_depth, recursive, active_path, and include_total get no meaning from the text.

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 states a specific verb ('Paginate') and resource ('entities') and scopes it to paths and world bounds, so an agent knows it is a listing/query operation. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling entity_* tools (notably entity_inspect), but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 only usage cue is 'Use scan_limit for large models,' which is a parameter hint rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no indication of when to prefer this over entity_inspect or other siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion criteria.

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