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 that search_query doesn't support wildcards, defaults (limit=100), and that returning 'lean formatting' by default vs detailed. But it doesn't mention pagination behavior, potential errors, or output structure beyond 'entity dictionaries'. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 structured into Args, Returns, Examples, and Best Practices sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While somewhat lengthy, every section provides valuable information without being excessively verbose. It could be slightly streamlined but is well-organized.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not provided), the description adequately covers return format and usage scenarios. It includes best practices and comparisons to an alternative tool. It addresses all 5 parameters and provides examples. However, it doesn't mention pagination or maximum limits for the limit parameter, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, but the description's 'Args' section explains each parameter with details (e.g., 'Does not support wildcards' for search_query, default values, types). It adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default-only information, though it could be more concise for some parameters.

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 'Get a list of Home Assistant entities with optional filtering', specifying both the verb and resource. It mentions an alternative (domain_summary_tool) for domain overviews, providing some sibling differentiation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other similar siblings like search_entities_tool or get_entities_by_area, so it loses a point for full differentiation.

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 includes a 'Best Practices' section that advises when to use this tool vs domain_summary_tool, and provides guidance on preferring domain filtering and using lean format. It also tells how to get all entities by leaving the search query empty. However, it doesn't cover all sibling tools (e.g., search_entities_tool) so it's not fully comprehensive.

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