list_integration_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add behavioral value by stating that only_new 're-polls the integration' (network/refresh behavior) and 'lists what is not exposed yet' (filter semantics). But it doesn't disclose read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or failure behavior. The re-poll disclosure is genuinely useful, but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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 compact at two sentences with no wasted words. However, the opening sentence 'Entities an integration offers' is a grammatically incomplete fragment and isn't ideally front-loaded with the action or the key differentiator. The only_new explanation is appropriately placed second.

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?

The output schema exists, which relieves the description of explaining return format. Core purpose is stated and one usage context (device pairing) is given. But with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description leaves integration_id and host unexplained, and lacks exclusions or alternatives. It's adequate but not complete for an integration tool with sibling overlap.

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 explain all parameters. It explains only_new in some detail ('re-polls the integration and lists what is not exposed yet') but says nothing about integration_id (the required parameter) or host. With one of three parameters covered, the description fails to compensate for the total 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 states the resource ('entities an integration offers') and the verb is implied by the name 'list'. It's reasonably clear what the tool does, and it distinguishes from list_integrations (which lists integrations, not entities). However, it's a sentence fragment, not a complete statement of purpose, and doesn't distinguish from list_scope_entities which also lists entities.

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 one concrete usage scenario: 'required after pairing a new device' for the only_new mode. This is a useful when-to-use hint. However, it doesn't name alternatives or explain when NOT to use this tool versus similar siblings like list_scope_entities or get_integration.

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