List BJJGraph entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds that results include a 'one-line summary,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not describe pagination behavior or other operational details, so the added value is modest.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words. The core listing behavior is front-loaded, followed by the optional filter note, 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?

Given the rich schema, annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the supported kinds, says results are one-line summaries, and mentions the optional filter. No critical calling information is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic clarity for the 'type' values by mapping 'system' to game plans/courses and 'submission' to submission families, going beyond the enum labels even though the schema already documents the parameters.

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: 'Lists entries of one kind with a one-line summary.' It also enumerates the supported entry kinds, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like bjj_search or bjj_get_technique, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage is implied by the required 'type' parameter and the phrase 'Lists entries of one kind,' so an agent can infer this is the browsing/list tool. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of bjj_search or the get tools, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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