list_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that this returns only IDs and titles with no content, which tells the agent this is a cheap read-only enumeration. However, for a tool that lists ALL entities it says nothing about result size, pagination, or truncation, and no permissions/rate context is given.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed immediately by routing guidance. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return shape ('IDs and titles'), covering the biggest gap. But with no annotations and 33% parameter coverage, the meaning of entity_type and status remains undefined in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent under-equipped for a required-parameter tool.

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 coverage is only 33%: repo is documented, but entity_type has no description and status has no description, no enum, and a null default, so an agent cannot tell what valid values or filtering semantics apply. The description never mentions any parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List IDs and titles for all entities of a type') and narrows the payload explicitly ('returns no content'), which separates it from the content-returning siblings. An agent can distinguish it from query_entities, search, and get_impact without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('enumerate a type or resolve an entity_id for get_callers/get_impact') and an explicit when-not ('for substance use search or query_* tools'), naming the alternative tools by name. Nothing is left to inference.

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