aspro_list_entities

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closed-world behavior are covered. The description adds that the result includes methods per entity, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the listing is exhaustive, paginated, or what the exact response structure is, so behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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, dense sentence that conveys the core purpose and return value without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 list tool with one parameter and a read-only annotation, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is listed and that methods are included. There is no output schema, but the description gives a reasonable idea of the return content. Missing details like sorting or filtering are not essential for this tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'module' parameter with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('entities inside a given module') and mentions the additional inclusion of methods on each entity. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aspro_list_modules (which lists modules) and aspro_list_methods (which likely lists methods in isolation), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage when you know a module name and want to explore its entities, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus aspro_list_methods or aspro_search. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage context is only inferred from the sibling names and the parameter requirement.

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