list_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the return values and implies a non-destructive read operation, but doesn't explicitly mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The mention that it returns 'whether they are public/customizable' adds useful context beyond a simple list.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: what it does, what it returns, and how to proceed. It's front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context: what it returns, when to use it, and a next-step pointer. It could mention the default limit or any permission requirements, but these are minor 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?

The input schema fully documents the two parameters (limit and filter) with descriptions and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific guidance, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since coverage is 100%.

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 'List all entities' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the returned fields (names, display names, public/customizable). It distinguishes from siblings like get_entity_schema by framing this as discovery.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Use this to discover what data is available before diving into specific entities.' It also offers a tip to use get_entity_schema afterward, which is an explicit alternative for the next step. However, it doesn't state when not to use it relative to other siblings like fetch_query or list_workflows.

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