list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List entities' and mentions language support, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, the meaning of limit/page, whether 'all' bypasses pagination, what 'isShort' controls, or whether any side effects exist. Too little behavioral context for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 concise sentence with no waste, which is good for front-loading. However, 'List entities' partially restates the tool name, and the brevity comes at the expense of necessary detail about parameters and behavior. It is efficient but under-specified rather than optimally written.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry significant explanatory weight. It fails to explain pagination semantics, the 'all'/'isShort' flags, search behavior, response shape, or any constraints. An agent would need to infer almost everything about how to call this correctly beyond the resource parameter.

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 roughly 17% (only 'resource' has a description), so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds only the UA/RU/EN synonym note for resource and leaves all, page, limit, search, and isShort entirely unexplained in both schema and description. The single i18n detail is valuable but far from sufficient.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('List entities') and adds the useful detail that resource names are supported in UA/RU/EN. It is clear enough to be read as a read/list operation versus siblings like get or update, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings and 'entities' stays generic.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when list is preferred over get, find_existing_*, or create, nor any exclusions. The only hint is the localized resource-name support, which doesn't help an agent choose among sibling tools.

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