strapi_list_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lacks important behavioral details such as pagination behavior (does it return all entries at once or a limited page?), default page size, or the effect of queryJson on results. There is no mention of response shape or error behavior, leaving key operational aspects undisclosed.

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 a single, straightforward sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is meaningful, with no redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple with two parameters and full schema coverage, giving a minimum viable explanation. However, the absence of an output schema and missing behavioral details (like pagination) make it incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's response and limitations. It is adequate but has clear 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (contentType and queryJson), which already explains their meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'entries for a Strapi collection type', accurately conveying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'strapi_get_entry' (single entry) and 'strapi_list_content_types' (schemas, not entries).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for multiple entries while 'strapi_get_entry' is for a single entry, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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