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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource, but does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, ordering, or any side effects. For a list operation, it should at least indicate its read-only nature or return format.

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 wasted words. It states the action and the target clearly, and is appropriately short for a simple list operation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from more contextual detail without harming brevity.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the return value looks like, whether results are sorted, or how the optional limit affects the response. Agents lack crucial info about the result format and behavior, making the description insufficient for confident 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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, which has a clear description ('Max records, default 20'). Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description does not need to add more. The tool description itself adds no additional param meaning, which aligns with the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('recent Smart Swarm injections on residual planes'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate it from several sibling list tools (e.g., cddg_list_bindings, cddg_residual_summary) that could overlap, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about scenarios that favor this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or when this is the right choice among the many list_* tools. The absence of any usage context makes this a weak point.

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