List entities

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It accurately implies read-only operation via 'browse' and 'list', and reveals the incremental sync mechanism. It does not explicitly mention authentication needs or rate limits, but these are common and not required for scoring high transparency.

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?

Two concise paragraphs with front-loaded purpose and sibling alternatives, followed by a dedicated explanation of incremental sync. No redundant sentences; every part adds value.

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 description covers browsing, filtering, and sync, but lacks details on the response structure (e.g., entity object format, pagination metadata) since there is no output schema. This is a gap for a tool with nested parameters and sync tokens.

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 coverage is low (17%), but the description adds meaning by specifying filtering by type/name/tags and explaining the 'since' parameter for incremental sync. It does not elaborate on basic pagination parameters (page, per_page), but those are self-explanatory.

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 tool browses campaign entities with enumeration, paging, and filtering by type/name/tags. It distinguishes itself from siblings by directing users to kanka_get_entity for specific IDs and kanka_full_text_search for text search, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs when to use this tool versus alternatives (kanka_get_entity for ID lookup, kanka_full_text_search for text search). Also provides clear guidance on incremental sync usage with 'since' parameter and 'sync' token.

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