list_entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are capped 'up to limit' and include geometry, which is useful truncation context, but says nothing about ordering, total counts, or how filters combine.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified for a tool with three optional filters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a list tool with three optional filters and a truncation cap, the description gives no guidance on filter combination, result ordering, or what happens when the cap is hit, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 67%: layer and entity_type carry descriptions (including the entity_type type list) while limit is self-documenting via default/min/max constraint. The description's 'filtered' and 'up to `limit`' wording restates rather than extends what the schema already provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (model-space entities) plus the notable payload detail that geometry is included. It implicitly separates itself from get_entity (single) and list_layers/list_blocks (other resource types), but never names a sibling or states the contrast explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(filtered, up to `limit`)' hints that filtering and truncation are expected, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or guidance on choosing this over get_entity when a single entity is wanted. Usage is only implied.

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