ampl_list_entities

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

The description implies a read-only discovery operation ('List declared entities', 'map of what has been built') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, since annotations are absent. It adds useful context about what the tool returns (shape and built state), but no deeper behavioral details.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and adding practical guidance in the second. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has an output schema, which reduces the need to explain return values, and the description covers purpose and usage well. However, parameter semantics are entirely absent, and with no annotations, the description alone is slightly incomplete for a fully informed invocation.

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 two parameters (kind, session) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain either parameter. With no guidance on what 'kind' filters or how 'session' is used, the agent is left to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 ('declared entities') and clarifies the purpose with 'with their shape' and 'map of what has been built.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ampl_list_sessions.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Call this when unsure what exists rather than guessing at names'), providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the when-not guidance is present.

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