rem_list

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 only says 'list' and gives no information about pagination limits, default ordering, how filters/search/parent/document interact, authentication needs, or response shape. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a complex listing operation.

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 short and free of fluff, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Five words carry no operational or behavioral content, so the structure does not help the agent act correctly.

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?

A 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations needs far more context. The agent cannot infer pagination defaults, how filters are structured, whether results are ordered, or what the returned objects look like. The description is completely inadequate for safe invocation.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning for any of the 9 parameters. project_id, limit, offset, parent, search, filters, document, and order_by are entirely unexplained; even 'type' gains nothing beyond the enum list. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('entities of a type'), and the type enum defines the concrete entity kinds. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like rem_get (single entity) or trace_matrix/get_traces (trace-specific listings), so some sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool instead of rem_get, get_traces, list_projects, or the filtering/search capabilities. The description implies 'use this to list entities,' but provides no exclusions, alternatives, or context.

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