SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (though limit/offset parameters exist), sorting, performance characteristics, authentication requirements, or what happens when filters return no results. For an 8-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List entities') followed by the key filtering capabilities. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool with multiple filter options.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and filter enumeration but lacks behavioral context and parameter guidance. It's minimally adequate for understanding what the tool does but insufficient for optimal agent usage without additional schema documentation.

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. It enumerates the filter types ('type, status, attribute, tag, and text') which maps to 5 of the 8 parameters, but doesn't explain 'limit' or 'offset' (pagination) or provide examples of valid values. The description adds some value by naming the filter categories but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('entities') with specific filtering capabilities ('optional type, status, attribute, tag, and text filters'). It distinguishes this as a listing/filtering tool rather than a creation or update operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'search_content' or 'find_similar_entities' beyond the 'list' terminology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_content', 'find_similar_entities', and 'get_entity' available, there's no indication of when filtering via list_entities is preferred over other search/retrieval methods. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is mentioned.

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