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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool lists all detector IDs and their purposes, which is a simple read-only operation. However, it does not describe output format, potential volume, or any caveats, though the simplicity of the tool makes this less critical.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and immediately specifies the catalog and content. No redundant words or repetition of the tool name.

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 simple, parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns. It could be more explicit about the output format, but the context of the sibling tools and the clear purpose make it sufficiently complete for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds context about the list content, but no parameter-specific semantics are needed.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'the quantakrypto detector catalog', with detail on what is returned (every detector id and what it looks for). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all action-oriented (apply, triage, remediate, verify).

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 when you need to see the detector catalog, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The distinction from siblings is clear from their names, but the description itself does not provide direct usage guidance.

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