list_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does a solid job: it explains that kind is an installed o3d_ enum, what data edges and faces include, and that solid_only defaults to true to exclude sketch and datum geometry. It does not explicitly declare read-only behavior or side effects, but the discovery framing plus the 'Rediscover topology after modifications' guidance conveys the operative behavior well.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers kind, returned data, solid_only behavior, and usage context. Every sentence contributes information, though the final two imperatives are a bit terse and could be integrated more cleanly.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides useful coverage of entity kinds, data fields, and filtering behavior. It falls short on explaining limit/offset behavior, document_id scope, the precise return shape, and how empty results or invalid kinds are handled.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains kind and solid_only meaningfully, and gives examples for kind. However, limit, offset, and document_id receive no explanation, and pagination semantics are left entirely to the agent to infer from parameter names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Discover existing native entities, including imported/reopened models'. It further distinguishes scope with entity kinds like o3d_edge and o3d_face, which helps separate it from document-level or sketch-level sibling tools. It stops short of an explicit contrast with closely related inspection tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated by name.

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 implies usage context: use it to select entities by geometric evidence and to rediscover topology after modifications. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like inspect_model, sdk_search, or set_entity_state, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives.

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