List Career Entities

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description goes further by disclosing the archive/delete semantics: archived bases are included in used_in_bases, deleted ones excluded, and retired bullets appear only in point_count. It does not discuss pagination or ordering of results, which would be the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its differentiator, then filters, then return-field meaning. Information density is high and nothing is filler, but the stacked parentheticals make it read as one dense block rather than clearly segmented guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining the return shape and does so: point_count, draft_count, approved_count (with the retired-bullet nuance) and used_in_bases (with archive/delete semantics). Combined with the filter value lists, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 kind/status only as untyped strings with null defaults, so the description carries the full load. It enumerates the exact accepted values for both filters (experience|project|education|certification|extra and ongoing|completed|archived) and signals that both are optional, which is meaning the schema does not provide.

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 Career KB entities with their IDs") and immediately distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by noting get_career_context returns prose with no IDs. An agent can tell this apart from kb_get_entity, kb_list_points and get_career_export 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?

Explicitly frames the use case: fetch IDs when you intend to edit, since get_career_context gives prose only. It also explains the two optional filters. It stops short of naming all alternatives (kb_get_entity, kb_list_points) or stating when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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