list_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses pagination behavior: 'Returns paginated results — use pageCursor from response to get next page.' However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, or what the response structure looks like beyond pagination.

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 two tightly written sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds filtering and pagination details, making it easy to scan.

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 nine-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, supported filters, and pagination mechanics. It is missing details about the return format and default field behavior, but it provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly given the complete schema.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds a summary of filterable fields (name, owner, status, archived, parent) and mentions pageCursor, but this is largely redundant with the schema. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List Productboard entities of a given type.' It also lists the supported filters, making the tool's function clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like search_entities or get_entity, so it falls short of the top score.

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 ('List ... entities of a given type') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It does not say when to prefer this over search_entities or get_entity, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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