list_entry_ids

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds that the result includes labels and that filtering by section is optional, but it does not explain ordering, pagination, or how the empty default section behaves beyond the implied 'no filter' meaning.

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 entire description is one tight sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the optional filter with all allowed values. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, and every word adds value.

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?

This is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema already present, so the description does not need to explain return structures further. It covers the key behaviors: listing all entry IDs, including labels, and optionally restricting by section type. That is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 for 'section' has no description and no enums, so the description carries the full burden of parameter semantics. It explicitly lists the valid section values and explains that the parameter filters the results, which adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all entry IDs with labels'), and it enumerates the filterable section types. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_entry or list_cv_sections, but the resource and filtering scope make the core purpose clear.

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 says the list can be optionally filtered by section type, but it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over related tools such as get_entry, query_by_topic, or get_entry_context. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, so an agent must infer the appropriate usage.

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