coherra_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states ordering (most-recently-updated first), the contents of each result (structured body with value, confidence, source, timestamps), the default and maximum limit, and the exact return shape. This goes well beyond a basic 'list' claim and gives the agent realistic expectations for the operation.

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?

The description is well-structured and efficient: a one-line purpose, a sentence on ordering and result richness, then compact Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds relevant information, and the structure is easy to scan. There is no filler or repeated schema data.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, filtering behavior, ordering, result contents, defaults, limits, and return format. The agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly, including how its results avoid the need for a separate recall call. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 for the schema's lack of property descriptions. The Args section fully documents both parameters: category is optional and omittable, limit has a default of 50 and max of 200. The return section also describes the output keys, making parameter and result semantics complete despite the sparse 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List entities managed by Coherra', immediately distinguishing it from the sibling tools (remember, recall, audit, repair, onboard). The optional category filter and the explicit mention that results are ordered most-recently-updated-first add precise scope. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 comment 'without a separate recall call' implicitly tells the agent that this tool can replace coherra_recall for inspecting full entity bodies, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against the other sibling tools, and no exclusion of cases like needing a single entity vs. a list. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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