list_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the filter semantics in detail, which is valuable, but it does not mention pagination behavior, default engagement handling, or return format. The reader must infer that the tool is read-only and that it returns a paged list based on the presence of limit and cursor parameters.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then provides specific filter details. Every sentence carries substantive information, with no filler or repetition of schema content unnecessarily.

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 6 parameters including a nested filter and no output schema, the description covers the main filter semantics and type enumeration, but it omits return structure, pagination mechanics beyond hinting via cursor, and engagement default behavior. While schema covers limit and engagement, the lack of output schema means the description should hint at what is returned, which it does not. This is adequate for a simple list tool but has minor 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?

The schema has 67% coverage, leaving 'type' and 'filter' undocumented. The description compensates by enumerating valid type values and explaining filter usage with concrete examples, adding meaning beyond what the schema provides. For the other parameters, the schema already covers them, so no redundancy.

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 action (List) and the resource (entities), and enumerates the specific entity types, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_findings and list_tasks. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to identify correct usage.

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 specific filter usage examples but does not advise when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search or get_entity. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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