list_registered_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool reads current state ('currently registered') and ties to 'agent memory', suggesting a read-only diagnostic operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe pagination, ordering, or return volume. This is minimal but sufficient for a simple list operation.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The parenthetical adds a useful use-case without fluff. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the purpose and a use case, but it lacks explicit information about the output format (though 'List' implies returning entities). It also does not mention sorting, pagination limits, or how the limit parameter behaves beyond the default. For a debugging tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides descriptions for only one of two parameters (system), leaving limit with a default but no explanation. The description itself does not mention either parameter, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. With schema coverage at 50%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter detail, especially for the limit parameter.

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 ('currently registered entities'), with a specific verb and noun phrase. It is distinct from sibling tools like register_entity (which writes) and resolve_entity/fuzzy_match_records (which look up specific entities). The parenthetical 'useful for debugging agent memory' adds a practical purpose that further clarifies intent.

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 implies usage for debugging agent memory, which gives a clear context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when not to use it. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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