List the entries of a DataLens workbook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that: results are auto-paginated, and output is capped at the configured item cap (YCLI__HTTP__MAX_ITEMS) unless ``limit`` is supplied. It does not characterize permission behavior or the full paging contract, so this is adequate-plus rather than rich.

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?

Three short sentences/fragments with the key scoping constraint (auto-pagination and the lookup cap) front-loaded. No filler, though the backticked inline formatting is slightly awkward for a tool description.

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 an 8-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description usefully hints at the returned entry shape (each entry has a scope and an id that opens it elsewhere) and at pagination/cap behavior. It stops short of describing ordering defaults or whether paging requires follow-up calls, which is the only remaining gap.

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 100%, so every parameter (limit, scope, filters, only_my, order_by, created_by, include_permissions_info, workbook_id) already carries a description; baseline 3 applies. The description restates the cap/limit behavior and clarifies that ``scope`` denotes entry kind, but adds little syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema itself.

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 a concrete verb and resource: it enumerates what a workbook holds (connections, datasets, charts, dashboards) and frames the tool as the listing endpoint for that container. It is clear without opening the schema, but it never contrasts itself with its closest siblings (datalens_workbooks_list, datalens_entries_list), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is an implied usage path — the ``scope`` of an entry tells you which family of tools opens it by id — which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it never says when to call this versus datalens_entries_list or datalens_workbooks_list, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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