list_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list' — it does not address whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no diagram is provided (beyond what the schema already says), potential failure modes, or return format.

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 clean, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently structured, though brief to the point of omitting useful context.

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?

Adequate for a simple listing tool with one optional parameter, but with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, an agent is left guessing about the return shape and about how this overlaps with parse_er_diagram. Complete enough to attempt a call, not complete enough to call confidently.

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 covers the single diagram parameter at 100%, including the fallback to a configured diagram source, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the general purpose, which merits the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (entities/tables in the ER diagram), and the returned fields (names and aliases). It clearly describes what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like parse_er_diagram or get_entity_details, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell whether to call this instead of parse_er_diagram for obtaining an entity list, and no conditions or exclusions are given.

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