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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It adds 'One meaning, no drift' indicating stability of signals, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has other behavioral traits. For a simple list operation, the description provides some context but lacks completeness.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the enumeration of signals. No redundant information; every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It lists all seven signals and adds stability context. However, it could explicitly state that the output is a list of signal identifiers, though the name and context imply that.

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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable as baseline is 4 for zero parameters. No additional value is needed beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states that the tool lists all seven signals of the ACM-68000 set, naming each individually. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'resolve_signal', which likely retrieves a single signal, by focusing on enumeration of the complete set.

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 implies usage for obtaining all signals, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'resolve_signal'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with implied but not explicit guidance.

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