List Entities (Snipe-IT)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the read-only and safe behavior is clear. The description adds only the basic response format {total, rows} but does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or handling of unknown entities. Given strong annotation coverage, this score is adequate.

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 a single sentence listing entities and the response format, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be structured better with bullet points or more explicit sections to improve readability without increasing length.

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 response format is mentioned, which is helpful given no output schema. However, the description omits details on pagination (limit/offset), sorting, searching, and the default behavior (e.g., default limit 50). With 6 parameters and only 33% schema coverage, the description is not sufficiently complete to guide an agent without external knowledge.

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 only 33% (only limit and entity have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what is in the schema. It does not explain 'sort', 'order', 'offset', or 'search' parameters, leaving agents without guidance on how to use pagination, filtering, or ordering.

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 verb 'List' and enumerates all entity types that can be listed. It also distinguishes from assets/hardware by noting they have their own tools, which differentiates it from sibling snipeit_list_assets.

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 implicitly suggests when to use this tool (for entities other than assets/hardware) by mentioning in the entity parameter description that assets/hardware have their own tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, or criteria for choosing between alternatives like snipeit_list_assets or snipeit_search_capabilities.

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