get_entity_names

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '가볍고 빠름' (lightweight and fast), which hints at performance characteristics, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key characteristic (lightweight and fast). Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and how it differs from siblings like list_entities. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand when and how to use this tool effectively, especially without annotations or output schema to compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (entityType, sortBy, sortOrder) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the meaning of entityType values or default behaviors. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose as '엔티티 이름 목록만 조회합니다' (retrieves only entity name lists) with the added context '가볍고 빠름' (lightweight and fast). It specifies the verb (조회/retrieve) and resource (entity names), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_entities or get_entity_types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as search_nodes, which might also retrieve entity-related data.

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 implies usage guidelines by stating '가볍고 빠름' (lightweight and fast), suggesting this tool is optimized for quick retrieval of names only, as opposed to more detailed entity data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_entities or search_nodes, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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