list_file_entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns the entire set rather than a ranked subset, and it reports a completeness flag, which the agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the differentiator, then the call trigger. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so at the right level: the full entity set plus a completeness signal. Pagination fields are covered by the schema, so for a three-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the shape of an entity record is left unstated.

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 the schema already documents path, cursor, and page_size with defaults and bounds. The description only echoes the path semantics ('by repo-relative path') and the whole-set framing, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields — baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List every entity the graph holds for one file') and pins the scope to one file keyed by repo-relative path. It also carves out a distinctive property against the retrieval siblings ('the only retrieval tool that says what it left out'), so an agent can separate it from semantic_search, find_references, or graph_neighborhood without opening a schema.

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?

It gives one explicit and valuable trigger: 'Call it before concluding a file holds nothing,' which is exactly the failure mode that matters for an exhaustive-listing tool. What's missing is the other half of routing guidance — when to prefer a narrower retrieval sibling instead — but the stated condition is concrete rather than implied.

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