list_entities

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds only that filters are optional and pagination is supported, which is already present in the schema. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as result ordering, default return format, or how filters combine, though it also does not contradict the annotation.

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 that front-loads the core action ('List entities'), then the optional filters, then pagination. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing; every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary functional dimensions: filtering and pagination. It does not mention result shape or ordering, but given the readOnly annotation and rich parameter schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description restates the filter dimensions (space, type, name) and pagination but adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('List entities') and specifies optional filters for space, type, and name plus pagination, providing a concrete sense of scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_entities, which may perform similar filtering, so it falls short of 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 implies its use case through the mention of optional filters and pagination, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_entities or get_entity. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' framing, making the usage context only implicit.

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