list_entities

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: fetching full metadata can be slow (5-30 seconds). This helps the agent set expectations. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but it is implied. The description adds useful performance context beyond what annotations would provide.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then filter options, and finally a performance note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers the main function, filtering, and performance, but lacks explanation for three of four parameters (data_center, auth params). While an output schema exists, the missing parameter descriptions reduce completeness for a 4-param tool with zero schema coverage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains filter_prefix with examples, leaving data_center, auth_user_id, and auth_password undescribed. These parameters are common but still need semantic context to guide proper use.

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 lists all available OData entities from SAP SuccessFactors, specifying it returns entity set names from $metadata and providing examples of prefixes. It distinguishes itself from a sibling tool (get_entity_metadata) by mentioning it as an alternative for querying a specific entity.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool (list all entities, optionally filter by prefix) and when not to (when slow performance is a concern, suggesting to use get_entity_metadata instead). It provides alternative guidance and context for efficient usage.

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