utmt-list-entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON array with index, name, and brief properties') and supported types, but it omits behavioral details such as CLI dependency, read-only nature, error handling, or pagination limits (which are only in the schema).

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The list of supported types is useful but not excessive; every sentence contributes value without redundant 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?

For a simple listing tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient top-level behavior: what it lists, from what, and the general return shape. It does not explain filter/pagination behavior, but the schema already fully covers those parameters, so the description is adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description and defaults. The tool description adds little beyond restating the supported entity types, so it does not rise above the baseline expected when the schema is fully 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('entities of a given type from a GameMaker data file'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also enumerates supported entity types, which distinguishes it from siblings like get-entity, export-entity, and search.

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 implies usage when you need to list multiple entities, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get-entity or search. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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