List Career Entities

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains exactly how point_count, draft_count and approved_count relate to each other, including the edge case of retired bullets and bullets combined into another being counted nowhere. It also spells out the inclusion rule for used_in_bases (archived included, deleted excluded), which is non-obvious behavior an agent could not infer.

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?

Purpose and the sibling distinction are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The dense parenthetical about bullet counting is justified but somewhat hard to parse in a single pass, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape — and it does, naming the per-item fields (point_count, draft_count, approved_count, used_in_bases) and their inclusion semantics. With only two optional filters, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0% and the schema declares both filters as unconstrained strings, so the description carries the full burden — and it does, enumerating the valid kind values (experience|project|education|certification|extra) and status values (ongoing|completed|archived). Without this text an agent would have no way to know legal filter values.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List Career KB entities with their IDs') and immediately distinguishes the tool from its closest sibling, get_career_context, by explaining that the latter returns prose without IDs. An agent can tell exactly what it gets here without opening the 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?

It names an explicit alternative (get_career_context) and the condition that selects this tool instead ('IDs needed to edit'), which covers the main routing decision. It does not, however, position itself against other KB listing tools such as kb_list_points or kb_get_entity, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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