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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is free and lists the return fields, but does not describe authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated or filtered. Adequate for a simple read-only list but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the returned fields and cost. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the key return fields (id, version, objectives covered, dilemma count) and notes the free cost, which compensates for the missing schema. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is nearly complete; only granular details like sorting are absent.

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 there is no parameter syntax to explain; the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond noting the returned fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('dilemma batteries for psyche audits'), and enumerates returned fields (id, version, objectives covered, dilemma count). Sibling tools remirror_create_audit and remirror_get_report are clearly different operations, so an agent can distinguish this catalog call without opening schemas.

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?

Provides context ('for psyche audits') and a cost note ('Free'), implying use before audit creation, but does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings or when not to use it. With zero parameters, usage is largely inferred rather than stated.

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