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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' clearly implies a non-mutating read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context about which vaults and strategies are live on mainnet. This goes beyond a bare name and does not hide any surprising side effects.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core listing scope, and the second adds mainnet-specific availability context. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description adequately conveys what is returned conceptually and adds important environment-specific status. There is no output schema, but the return content is described well enough for an agent to invoke the tool successfully; minor details like response format or testnet behavior are not essential here.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are no parameters to document.

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 identifies two distinct resource types with their explicit categories: Forge vaults (Core/Middle/Infra) and agent strategies (Conservative/Balanced/Aggressive). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling tools like deposit, withdraw, and claim_forge.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need to know available vaults or strategy profiles, with mainnet-specific liveness information provided. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but none of the sibling tools serve the same listing purpose, so the guidance is adequate.

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