List entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: built-in rows carry isBuiltIn=true and cannot be updated or archived, telling the agent which results are immutable. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but the safety/immutability disclosure is real added value.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, followed by the immutability caveat and the filter hint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the entity kinds, the built-in immutability constraint, and filtering. Pagination is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable, leaving only a small gap.

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 100%, so limit, cursor, and entityType are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the entityType filter condition, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific verb (list) and enumerates the resource kinds it returns: built-in actors, products, visual styles, slideshow themes, plus team entities. This clearly separates it from the single-item siblings (get_entity, create_entity), though 'team entities' is left slightly undefined.

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 offers one conditional hint — 'Filter with entityType when you only need one kind' — which is genuine usage guidance. It does not state when to prefer get_entity over listing, nor any prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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