list_sketch_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the word 'List' but never states non-mutating behavior, result shape, pagination, or how max_items affects output. For a tool with no annotation safety signals, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource immediately. It is concise and easy to scan. The jargon in the selector list is a minor clarity issue, but the structure itself is efficient and appropriately sized for a list operation.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition is incomplete. It does not explain what entities can be filtered by kinds, how to scope the listing to a sketch or document, or what the response contains besides vague selectors. More context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining kinds, max_items, sketch_ref, document_id, or what the selectors are used for. The parameter names are self-evident, but the critical selector terminology is unexplained. Without any schema descriptions, the agent must guess at accepted values and semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List existing sketch entities.' It is distinguishable from siblings like inspect_sketch_entity and list_sketches at a high level. However, the phrase 'with reference, index, fingerprint, and geometry selectors' is ambiguous about whether these are output fields or filter inputs, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_sketch_entity, list_sketches, or other sketch inspection tools. It does not mention preconditions such as needing a sketch_ref or document_id, nor does it explain how kinds relates to filtering. The agent is left to infer the intended workflow context.

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