list_directory_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic get-by-ID operation and does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, or ordering, leaving significant gaps about what the tool actually returns.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It clearly conveys the action and provides a helpful example without unnecessary elaboration.

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, and the schema documents parameters and their defaults. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., pagination, sorting, or return format) and absence of an output schema leave some gaps. This is adequate for a basic read operation 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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to offset or pageSize, and only implicitly refers to directoryId. It adds no value beyond the schema.

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 the tool retrieves directory entries by ID, using a specific verb ('Получить') and resource ('записи справочника'). The example (status variants) adds concrete context. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool list_directories, but the resource being entries vs. directories is inferable.

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 example 'например, варианты статусов' suggests a common use case for retrieving reference data, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like list_directories or list_custom_fields. No when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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