Entity List Tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List all' and 'browsing' indicate a read-only, unfiltered operation, but the tool does not disclose potential response size, pagination/limits, or any additional behavior beyond the basic listing; the output schema covers return shape.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences, with the action front-loaded and the generic scope immediately following. No redundant words or filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with a full input schema description and an output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. The main missing context is how to discover valid entity type names beyond the listed common values and when the specialized list tools would be safer or better.

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?

The schema already documents the single 'entity' parameter at 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond labeling the domain as 'Grocy entity type'. The description's mention of 'any Grocy data table' adds context but not syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('List all objects of a Grocy entity type') and adds that it is a generic tool for 'any Grocy data table'. This distinguishes it from domain-specific list siblings in spirit, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.

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 phrase 'generic tool for browsing any Grocy data table' implies when to use it: when a caller needs an unfiltered list for an arbitrary entity. However, it gives no explicit guidance about preferring specialized list tools (e.g., recipes_list_tool, locations_list_tool) or about when not to use this tool.

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