entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it is an LLM-free read/discovery surface, recallCount ordering depends on usage stats, and merge/delete are noted as separate lossless/destructive operations rather than being conflated with this tool. It stops short of stating permission or scope implications for reading across project/personal/team, which leaves a small gap for a 10-param tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core list/filter capability, then routing and lifecycle escapes. Every sentence either defines scope or redirects to a sibling; nothing is redundant with the schema text.

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 all 10 parameters are documented in-schema, making this largely sufficient for correct invocation. The remaining gap is behavioral: with an empty annotations object, the description could state read-only safety and any scope/permission caveats for cross-scope reads.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond it by explaining the intent of sortBy=recallCount (most-recalled first, and that it replaces listTopEntities) and framing the name/confidence filters as discovery levers, though it doesn't elaborate on filter syntax since the schema already does.

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 and resource ('List and filter entities by kind, name substring, and confidence, with pagination') and immediately frames its role against siblings: an anchor-discovery surface that feeds neighbors/relations, plus explicit replacement of listTopEntities. An agent can distinguish it from query, neighbors, or relations without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: start here to find an anchor, then pivot into neighbors/relations; use the duplicate detection path with mergeEntities and junk cleanup with deleteEntity. It also names the deprecated alternative it supersedes (listTopEntities), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use signal that prevents wrong-tool selection.

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