listEntities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal pagination behavior (cursor-based) and rate limiting (limit 1-50), which are important operational details. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no results match filters - leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by parameter documentation. The Args section is organized but could be more concise - some explanations could be tighter. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does a reasonably complete job. It explains all parameters and key behaviors like pagination. The main gap is lack of sibling differentiation, but otherwise it provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively. It explains all 4 parameters: 'search_term' filters by text, 'type' filters by entity category, 'cursor' enables pagination continuation, and 'limit' controls page size with validation rules. This adds substantial meaning 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 the verb ('List') and resource ('entities from the DX software catalog'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'listInitiatives' or 'listTeams' - it doesn't explain what 'entities' encompasses versus those other list operations.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'listInitiatives', 'listTeams', and 'listScorecards', the description doesn't clarify whether this tool is comprehensive (listing all entity types) or how it relates to those more specific list operations. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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