List Entities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly adds return field details and filter behavior without contradicting. It doesn't mention any destructive side effects (none exist). The description adds value by listing return properties and filter availability.

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 sentences: first states purpose and filters, second states return fields and follow-up usage. Every sentence adds value, no unnecessary words. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool is a simple list with readOnlyHint, output schema exists, and parameters are well-documented in schema, the description covers the remaining contextual needs: what fields are returned and how to use the output with other tools. No gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optional type and layer filters' which aligns with type_filter and layer_filter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. No extra parameter guidance is given.

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 clearly states it lists entities with optional type and layer filters, and specifies the fields returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_get by noting that handles from list are used with those tools.

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 description explicitly tells agents to use the returned handles with entity_get, entity_move, entity_delete, etc. It implies that for listing, this tool is appropriate, and for single entity operations, use those other tools. No explicit when-not-to-use, but clear context.

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