list_entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful scoping context by noting that listed entities are 'connected to memories in the current project,' which clarifies the result set beyond what the annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second gives practical usage guidance. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 optional-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context about scope, purpose, and how to use it. The mention of traverse_graph helps situate it within the sibling toolset.

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 50%: the type parameter is partially reflected in the description's list of examples, while taskId is fully described in the schema. The description adds some context by implying the type values are memory-connected entity categories, but it does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('List tools, languages and concepts connected to memories') and explicitly references the downstream use case of finding an entity id for traverse_graph. However, it only names three of the six enum values, so it slightly under-specifies the full set of entity types the tool can list.

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 gives concrete use cases: 'understand the stack quickly' and 'find an entity id for traverse_graph.' It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like search_memory or get_context, but the guidance it does provide is clear and actionable.

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