list_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it lists entities but does not disclose return format, whether the list is flat or hierarchical, or performance implications. For a listing tool, more behavioral details are needed.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the entity types and scope. Every word is necessary; no wasted content.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format (e.g., list of entity IDs or names). It does not, leaving the agent unsure about what the response contains. For a simple one-parameter tool, more completeness is expected.

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 already provides a full description for the only parameter (group_name), covering both when it is provided and omitted. The main description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the verb 'list', specifies the resource types (faces, edges, groups, component instances), and indicates the scope (model or named group). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_components.

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 explains when to use the tool (model vs. inside a group) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like list_components for filtering by type. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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