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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds the location constraint ('under reference-apps/'), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, no additional details (e.g., behavior if no patterns exist) are given.

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, front-loaded sentence. Every word is necessary and clearly communicates the tool's action and scope. No wasted text.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope given zero parameters and no output schema. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the output format or any prerequisites (e.g., existence of the directory). Still, for a simple listing tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so no parameter semantics are needed. The schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add anything further.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing scenario patterns specifically under the 'reference-apps/' directory. The verb 'List' and resource 'scenario patterns' are specific. Among siblings like tide_list (general listing) and tide_scenario (single scenario), this tool's focus on patterns under a specific path distinguishes it effectively.

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?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 14 sibling tools, explicit usage context or exclusions would be very helpful but are entirely absent.

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