schema_list_entities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source context 'ODS server ModelCache' and the 'existing entities' scope, but does not disclose details such as ordering, whether entity metadata is included, or whether a connection is required first.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no wasted wording or repetition of structured fields.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description is suitably complete. It names the resource, states the operation, and gives the source location. No additional explanation of return values is needed because the output schema covers that.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description still reinforces that no inputs are needed and that it simply returns the existing entity list.

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 action ('Return a list'), the resource ('existing entities'), and the source ('ODS server ModelCache'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like schema_get_entity, which targets a single entity, and query_* tools, which handle queries.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as schema_get_entity or schema_field_exists. The context 'existing entities' implies a listing use case, but there is no direct statement of applicability, exclusions, or prerequisite connection steps.

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