list_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination support, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of returned data. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 extremely concise - a single sentence in Korean that efficiently communicates the core functionality and key features. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address the tool's behavioral characteristics, output format, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. The agent would need to make assumptions about important operational aspects.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering, sorting, and pagination support, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'retrieving a list of entities' (엔티티 목록을 조회합니다), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_entity_names' or 'search_nodes' that might also retrieve entity-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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 mentions support for filtering, sorting, and pagination, which provides some implied context about when to use this tool. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_nodes' or 'get_entity_names', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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