get_memory_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, how pagination works, or any potential side effects. The only behavioral hint is the name and the word 'Get', which is insufficient.

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 concise sentence with a clear verb and object. Every word contributes to the purpose, and there is no extraneous information.

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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and the presence of many similar sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'entities' are, what the response looks like, or how this tool differs from memory search or retrieval tools. An agent may struggle to select this tool correctly without additional context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit and entity_type) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't mislead about the parameters either. The word 'all' may slightly conflict with the limit default, but this is a minor issue.

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 retrieves extracted entities from memories, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like memory_search or get_memory by its focus on 'entities', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives.

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 memory_search or search_semantic. It simply states what it does without any contextual or exclusionary hints.

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